OFFICIAL REPORT.



The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

City of Dublin Steam Packet Company Bill [Lords],

Colonial and Foreign Banks Guarantee Corporation (Transfer) Bill [Lords],

Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Henry Bath and Son's (Delivery Warrants) Act, 1890 (Amendment), Bill [Lords],

A verbal Amendment made; Bill read the Third time, and passed, with an Amendment.

Rochester, Chatham and Gillingham Gas Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Price's Patent Candle Company Bill [Lords],

Rugby Gas Bill [Lords],

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL PRODUCTION.

HOUSEHOLD FUEL.

Mr. GRUNDY: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can now state how many registered coal merchants have been prosecuted under the Household Fuel and Lighting Orders, 1918–19, respectively, and the number of licensed coal dealers that have been prosecuted under the 1918–19 Orders, respectively?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridgeman): The number of cases in which registered coal merchants and licensed
coal dealers have been prosecuted under the Household Fuel and Lighting Orders, 1918 and 1919, is as follows:—


Registered Coal Merchants.



1918 Order
…
…
193


1919 Order
…
…
77


Licensed Coal Dealers.



1918 Order
…
…
142


1919 Order
…
…
66

Major HENDERSON: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, in conformity with the general desire of coal consumers in Glasgow, a communication was addressed to his Ministry on 29th October last, requesting that re-registration of coal consumers might be allowed, and that it was stated in reply on 11th November that it was hoped it would be possible to remove the control of household coal at such an early date that the re-registration of consumers would only cause unnecessary inconvenience; that in reply to a further letter dated 27th December, asking when coal control would be removed, it was stated on 9th January that it had not been found possible to remove the control of house coal; that a further letter was addressed to the Board of Trade on 24th January asking whether the question of re-registration could be reconsidered in view of the impossibility of removing the control and that to this letter no reply has been received; whether, under these circumstances, he will state if it will be possible to remove the control of household coal in Glasgow within the next three months: and, if not, whether he will permit re-registration of coal consumers in that city?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am aware of the circumstances to which the hon. and gallant Member calls attention. The question of decontrol is being carefully considered, but I regret that I am not in a position to make any definite statement at present.

Mr. THOMAS GRIFFITHS: 16.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the shortage of coal in the districts of Darwen; whether he is aware that householders are without supplies of coal for three and four days at a stretch, which is causing great hardship amongst invalids and children; and whether he will see that adequate supplies are forwarded to this area?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No complaints have reached me concerning supplies to Darwen, but I am having inquiries made into the position.

COAL FOE RESALE (PRICE AND GRADE).

Mr. GRUNDY: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will undertake to see that the price of coal sold for resale in South Lancashire and other localities is fixed in keeping with the permissible increase of 6s. 6d. per ton over and above the price obtaining in 1914, and that the grade of coal be determined by the price paid and not, as at present classified, as bests, seconds, and kitchen coal?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The increase of 6s. 6d. per ton above the corresponding price for household coal during the 12 months ended 30th June, 1914, relates solely to the pithead price chargeable by the colliery company. I am informed that the maximum retail prices of household coal in South Lancashire are grouped according to the average cost of the coal to the local merchants at their depôts; but if the hon. Member has any special cases in mind where the present arrangements are considered to be inequitable, I shall be glad to receive particulars.

COAL MINING (OUTPUT).

Mr. LAMBERT: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the number of persons engaged in coal mining, the output per person, and the wage per ton paid to the coal miners for 1913 and 1919, respectively; and whether he is satisfied that the fullest advantage of machinery is taken to enable coal to be mined with the least expenditure of human labour?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The figures of the output per person and wages per ton in 1913 were given to the right hon. Member on the 23rd February. The number of persons engaged in coal mining in that year was 1,110,884. In the first eight weeks of 1920 the average was 1,184,250, and the output per person 32⅔ tons; information as to the wages per ton is not yet available. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer the right hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for the Hamilton Division (Mr. D. Graham) on the 3rd March.

Mr. LAMBERT: Can my hon. Friend say what was the output per person in 1919?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I thought I had given that in the answer to the question on the 23rd February.

GAS COAL (SHORTAGE).

Mr. SITCH: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to a meeting in Birmingham on the 11th instant of the Midland Association of Gas Engineers and Managers, at which apprehension was expressed as to the possible results of the shortage of gas coal in many Midland towns; that in some instances reserve stocks are only sufficient for two or three days and that in the majority of towns less than one week's supply was available; and whether, in view of the great dependence of the public on gas, especially for purposes of heating and power, he will take steps to enable the towns affected to replenish their reserve stocks without delay, thereby avoiding the threatened stoppage of businesses and also hardship to private consumers of gas light and heat?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. Finney) on the 26th March.

Mr. SHORT: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether anything has been done to alleviate the distress in Birmingham?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have only to say that the Coal Controller has undertaken to deal with it as best he can.

MINERS' WAGES.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether it is a fact that the wages paid in the mining industry have been increased by approximately £134,000,000 a year since 1914, and whether he will see that no additional increase of wages, which would further add to the existing high prices of commodities and the cost of living generally, is granted to the miners until the proposal has been approved by the House of Commons, especially having regard to the statements recently made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that no money was available to relieve the undoubted hard-
ships at present being suffered by pensioners of the State, who had served before the War in the Army, the Navy, the Police or Civil Service, and whether he is aware that the present unfortunate position of these ex-servants of the State, as well as of all persons of fixed incomes, will be made worse by any further increase in the price of coal?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): All the considerations referred to in the question are being fully weighed by the Government, but, as my hon. Friend knows, negotiations are now proceeding, and I would deprecate the raising of the subject at this stage by question and answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

IMPORTATIONS FROM GERMANY.

Mr. PERRING: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if the shipments arriving in this country of cheap fancy and other goods from Germany come within the definition of dumping, having regard to the fact that they are imported here much below cost of production in this country; if he is aware that these importations, instead of checking profiteering on the part of traders here, really provide opportunities for merchants and dealers to secure larger profit than those accruing from handling home productions; and, inasmuch as these foreign-made goods do not financially benefit the consumer or user, if he will hasten the introduction and passage of the promised Anti-dumping Bill into law, thereby providing means of augmenting the national revenue in the interests of State as against middlemen securing unreasonable profits by reason of the favourable German exchange?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I do not think that dumping is generally held to mean the export to this country of goods at prices below the one at which they can be manufactured here. I am not aware of the facts alleged in the second part of the question. As regards the third part, I am not able at present to make any statement as to the introduction of measures to deal with this subject.

ELECTRIC LIGHT BULBS (IMPORTATION).

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade
whether the Government have ordered the prohibition of the restriction of imports of electric light bulbs from Holland; if so, is the Order specially directed to a new form of half-watt bulb; was the Order made at the request of a deputation of British manufacturers of electric bulbs; and under what authority was the Order made?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: There are no restrictions on the importation of electric light bulbs from any source.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: 17.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that German clocks are being imported into this country in large numbers which are not marked. Made in Germany, and that a Departmental Committee is now considering in what respects the Merchandise Marks Act may be amended so as to indicate the country of origin, steps may be taken to prohibit the importation of these goods until such legislation is passed, in view of the grave detriment to manufacturers in this country?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Having regard to the recent decision of Mr. Justice Sankey as to the legality of prohibitions of importation under the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, I am advised that new statutory powers would be required before effect could be given to the suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend. I am not prepared, pending the receipt of the Report of the Merchandise Marks Committee, to introduce legislation for modifying the existing laws relating to the marking of imported goods.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Can my right hon. Friend say whether some steps cannot be taken to check the importation of these goods from Germany, which are in a great many cases camouflaged as English goods by being marked "Westminster Chimes," and so on?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Yes, we hope we shall be able to do it, but we think we must wait for the Report of the Committee on Merchandise Marks, so as to do it comprehensively.

Mr. G. TERRELL: When does the hon. Gentleman think it will be possible to produce the Anti-Dumping Bill, which will deal with this?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: My hon. Friend must ask the Leader of the House.

Mr. TERRELL: May I ask if this Bill is in draft?

ARTIFICIAL FLOWERS, ETC. (IMPORTATION).

Mr. DOYLE: 12.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether there are any Government restrictions on the importation of artificial flowers, fruits, and loaves from late enemy countries; if he can state the value of such imports during the last three months; whether the amount is progressively increasing, and at what rate; and whether he is aware that there are thousands of women in this country engaged in the trade the majority of whom cannot do anything else?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: There are no restrictions on the importation of artificial flowers, fruits, and leaves from enemy countries. The value of such imports during the last three months was £3,092, of which £2,039 came in the month of February. I understand that the number of persons employed in the industry in this country is approximately 4,000, of whom about nine-tenths are women and girls.

Oral Answers to Questions — MESSRS. COATS AND CO.

Mr. LAMBERT: 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if the Committee to inquire into the reasonableness of the recent increase in the price of Messrs. Coats' cotton has yet reported; and, if so, what are its conclusions?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No Report has as yet been received from the Sub-Committee referred to.

Oral Answers to Questions — NON-FERROUS MINES (COMMITTEE).

Mr. GRUNDY: 13.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Committee on Non-ferrous Mines have yet presented their Report; and, if so, when it will be published?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The Committee in question have now presented their Report, which is dated 17th March. It will be published as soon as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — TOBACCO TRADE BOARD.

Mr. HURD: 14.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, by agreement between employers and employed, the Tobacco Trade Board has arrived at a new scale of wages; how this compares with the existing and pre-War scales; and whether this new scale is, in addition to the voluntary bonus, equal to two months' wages per annum which has been paid for some years by two of the large tobacco companies?

Mr. PARKER (Lord of the Treasury): I have ascertained that the Tobacco Trade Board (Great Britain), at a meeting on the 18th March, agreed upon the publication of a proposal to increase the minimum rates of wages for men of 21 years and over, from 55s. to 61s. 6d. per week, and for women of 18 years and over, from 35s. to 38s. 6d. per week. Under the Trade Boards Acts a period of two months is allowed, during which objections to the proposals may be lodged with the Trade Board.
With regard to the second part of the question, I understand that several large tobacco companies have agreements with their workers for the payment of scales of wages over and above any minimum rates fixed by the Trade Board, and that in addition, certain of these companies have in the past granted to their workers a bonus on wages.
No generally observed rates of wages statutory or other, prevailed in the tobacco trade before the War. Information about earnings of various classes of workers in the trade in different districts in 1906 is contained in Vol. VIII. of the Report of the Earnings and Hours Inquiry, an extract from which I shall be pleased to forward to the hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS TRADE (CREDITS AND INSURANCE) BILL.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: 15.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state from what source the £299,000 has been already spent in anticipation of the Overseas Trade (Credits and Insurance) Bill receiving Parliamentary sanction?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: As I informed the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. J. Brown) on 26th February, the figure of £299,000 represents the amount of appli-
cations for advances sanctioned. Of this sum only £130,099 will be required, since the authorities given in respect of the balance have lapsed. The total amount paid out for advances to date, namely, £13,984 has been provided for in the Supplementary Vote for Export Credits (Unclassified Services).

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Can my hon. Friend say whether the Money Resolution will be taken to-night?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am afraid I cannot answer that, but I think probably not.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH AMERICAN NICKEL CORPORATION.

Major MACKENZIE WOOD: 18.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government has entered into any contract with the British-American Nickel Corporation to take the whole or any part of the nickel produced by the corporation; if so, what are the terms of the contract; and what is the price to be paid for the nickel supplied under the contract?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The agreements with the British-American Nickel Corporation provide that for a period of years His Majesty's Government have the right to call for the delivery of a specified quantity of nickel at a fixed price, and the corporation is entitled to require the Government to take delivery of specified quantities at the current market price.

Mr. HOLMES: Is it not a fact that although the Government have a contract for nickel, they have never been able to obtain any?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I should like to have notice of that.

Oral Answers to Questions — PATALING RUBBER ESTATES, LIMITED.

Mr. SHORT: 20.
asked the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Pataling Rubber Estates, Limited, proposed to pay a final dividend of 160 per cent. less Income Tax, which would make the dividend for the year 1919 250 per cent. in all; and, if so, whether he will recommend investigation under the Profiteering Act?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I was not previously aware of the matters referred to in the question. At present no investigation is being made into the rubber trade, and it is not proposed to recommend the investigation of an isolated company. I would point out that in so far as rubber is sold by auction, it is outside the scope of the Profiteering Act.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

ROAD TRAFFIC SIGNALS.

Commander Viscount CURZON: 21.
asked the Minister of Transport whether the subject of traffic signals has been considered by any of his Committees; and if any action can be taken in the future to secure the universal adoption of a standard code?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Sir Eric Geddes): I assume road traffic signals are referred to. Certain recommendations on the subject of road traffic signals have been received, and will in due course be considered by the Departmental Committee on the Taxation and Regulation of Road Vehicles. The question of the universal adoption of a standard code will be considered by the Committee.

Mr. G. TERRELL: Will the Report to which the right hon. Gentleman refers be published, so that we may have an opportunity of considering it?

Sir E. GEDDES: I will consider that when the Report is made.

IRELAND.

Sir S. BENN: 22.
asked the Minister of Transport if any steps have been taken in Ireland towards carrying out any of the suggestions made in the Report of the Select Committee on Transport submitted to the House in November, 1918?

Sir E. GEDDES: As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, a separate branch of the Ministry has been set up in Dublin to deal with matters relating to Ireland. The Irish branch has under consideration a number of applications for financial assistance towards new or improved facilities, including a large number of the most important proposals specified in the Select Committee's Report. Expert inquiries will be proceeded with as speedily as possible.

RAILWAY SUPERVISING STAFF (REMUNERATION).

Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKE: 24.
asked the Minister of Transport whether any settlement has yet been arrived at with regard to the remuneration of the supervising staff on the railways?

Sir E. GEDDES: The question of the standardisation of the rates of pay and conditions of service of the classes of the railway supervisory staff not yet dealt with is receiving special attention by the General Managers, and the work in connection with the revision of their rates of pay will be completed as soon as possible.

ROYAL COMMISSION ON RAILWAYS.

Mr. GILBERT: 49.
asked whether the Royal Commission on Railways appointed in October, 1913, has yet made any Report, interim or otherwise, to the Government; if they propose to continue their sittings and hearing of evidence which were suspended during the War; and can he give the House any approximate date as to when the final Report of this Commission will be ready?

Sir E. GEDDES: The Prime Minister has asked me to answer this question. The Royal Commission on Railways suspended its sittings in January, 1915, without having issued any Report, and in present circumstances it is not intended to ask them to resume their sittings and to take further evidence.

METROPOLITAN TRAFFIC.

Mr. CLEMENT EDWARDS: 51.
asked the Prime Minister if, having regard to the grave urgency of the Metropolitan traffic problem, he will give an early day after Easter for the discussion of the Report of the Advisory Committee on London Traffic?

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: 52.
asked whether, in view of the extreme importance of improving the rapid transit facilities of London, which includes within its area about one-sixth of the population of the United Kingdom, he will give at least half a day of Parliamentary time for the purpose of discussing the Report of the London Traffic Committee at an early date after Easter?

Mr. BLAIR: 53.
asked the Prime Minister if he will arrange to give a day, as
soon after Easter as possible, to discuss the Report of the London Traffic Committee?

The PRIME MINISTER: My noble Friend the Patronage Secretary is considering whether this subject could be arranged for discussion on a Supply day.

Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: In view of the threat which has been made to hold up the railway traffic during the Easter holidays, will the right hon. Gentleman say what steps the Government have taken to deal with it?

The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot answer that question.

SLOW HORSE TRAFFIC (LONDON).

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: 56.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will consider the diversion of slow horse traffic from certain thoroughfares in London during the most crowded periods of the day?

Sir E. GEDDES: The Advisory Committee have recommended that additional powers be taken which would render possible the diversion suggested if considered necessary in the interests of general traffic.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Do these powers contemplate the abolition of anything beyond mechanically-controlled traffic?

Sir E. GEDDES: I must have notice of that.

Mr. CHADWICK: Does the right hon. Gentleman separate the different classes of traffic?

Mr. G. TERRELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman lay the Report of the Advisory Committee on the Table of the House?

Sir E. GEDDES: It is in the Report of the London Traffic Committee which has already been laid on the Table.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Does it apply to all sorts of horse traffic and does slow horse traffic include race horses?

TRAFFIC CONGESTION, HULL DOCKS.

Major ENTWISTLE: 57.
asked the Minister of Transport if, in view of the congestion in the Hull docks, he will consider the advisability of instructing the
Great Central Railway Company to assist and co-operate with the Hull and Barnsley Railway Company and the North Eastern Railway Company until this congestion is relieved?

Sir E. GEDDES: The Great Central Railway, no less than the other railway companies, are co-operating with the North Eastern and the Hull and Barnsley Railway for the purpose of relieving the position at Hull, and I am glad to say that, as a result of special steps which have been taken, the wagon situation at that port has shown considerable improvement.

MOTOR VEHICLES (SPEED LIMIT).

Mr. RAPER: 58.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that since the legislation which now governs the speed of motor cars was introduced the braking powers of motor vehicles has been improved 300 per cent.; and whether this justifies a demand for a revision of the speed limit regulations?

Sir E. GEDDES: The question of the speed limits imposed on motor vehicles is included in the terms of reference of the Departmental Committee on the Taxation and Regulation of Road Vehicles, and will be considered by them in the near future.

Mr. RAPER: When may we expect to receive that Report?

Sir E. GEDDES: They are just reporting, but they have a great many things to consider and the reports are coming in every day.

Mr. BILLING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is no speed limit in France and that less accidents happen there, and having regard to the desirability of increasing the speed of vehicular traffic he will be sympathetic towards abolishing the 20 miles an hour limit?

Sir E. GEDDES: I think I would rather wait and see what the Advisory Committee say.

PASSENGERS' LUGGAGE (REGISTRATION).

Mr. GILBERT: 59.
asked the Minister of Transport whether the Railway Commissioners have considered the advisability of establishing a proper system of
registration of passengers' luggage on all passenger trains; and, if not, whether he will bring before the Commissioners the desirability of having a single system of luggage registration in the interests of the travelling public and ask them to report to him as soon as possible as to the need of such a reform on all lines of railways in this country?

Sir E. GEDDES: The reply is in the negative. The present time is not opportune for the introduction of a new service of this sort even if it was generally desired. Judging from pre-War investigation it would be most unpopular to the travelling public and would cause additional cost.

METROPOLITAN EXTENSION LINE.

Mr. GILBERT: 60.
asked whether, in view of the urgent need for more travelling facilities for residents in South London, he can now make any statement as to when the South Eastern and Chatham Railway Company propose to re-open the stations on their Victoria and City line, and also to run a service of trains similar to pre-War times?

Sir E. GEDDES: I am still not in a position to add anything to the reply given on the 1st March. The services in question are non-remunerative and materially restrict and negative the running of other long-distance services, and the L.C.C. trams offer an alternative service. Pending a Report by the Advisory Committee on London Traffic, it is not proposed to open these stations.

MINISTRY OF MUNITIONS (RAILWAY WAGONS).

Major ENTWISTLE: 69.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions how many railway wagons were under the control of his Department on 1st January, 1919; and how many at the present time?

The DEPUTY MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): On the 1st January, 1919, there were 7,592 wagons in the United Kingdom under the control of the Ministry of Munitions and on the 24th of this month the number was 7,490, of which 826 are unsuitable for English railways. Those wagons are now, with the exception of the 826, being employed on iron ore, coal, chemical liquid, and nitre cake traffic. There are also approximately 3,779 wagons overseas in
the Ministry of Munitions' wagon pool, which will be handed over to the Ministry of Transport.

Viscount CURZON: Are any charges made for wagons employed on English railways?

Mr. KELLAWAY: Certainly.

Viscount CURZON: Who gets the money?

TRAMWAY STRIKE (THREATENED).

Mr. GRANT: (by private Notice) asked the Minister of Transport whether a strike is threatened during the Easter vacation by the Transport Workers' Union, and the tramway proprietors are unable to meet the numerous demands for increases of wages until the Government sanctions an increase of fares. Will the Government be able to authorise such an increase of fares as will enable the proprietors to meet the workers' demands?

Sir E. GEDDES: I only received notice of this question during Question time on the Bench, but I will answer it as well as I can. I am aware that a strike has been threatened by the Transport Workers during the Easter vacation. I also am aware that the tramway proprietors, both public authorities and companies, claim, and I believe the claim can be substantiated, that they are unable to continue operating at the present cost on the present authorised revenue. The Government has at present no authority from Parliament to increase the charging powers of the undertakings owned by public authorities to an extent which will be adequatae to meet this claim. There is power under the Ministry of Transport Act to raise charges inter alia beyond the statutory charges in the case of company-owned undertakings (but it is obviously impossible to meet the situation by increasing the company-owned charging powers and not increasing the public authority-owned tramway powers so that notice is being given to-morrow to introduce a Bill which will deal with the matter. As to when effect can be given to it, that will depend when we get power to deal with it in the House.

Mr. BILLING: Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman has an undertaking that, pending the introduction of the Bill, those responsible will hold their hand and there will be no strike?

Sir E. GEDDES: I have no such undertaking at all, but I hope, in the belief that the House will pass an adequate measure, the authorities and the companies may be able, through bankers or otherwise, to obtain sufficient funds to meet the men's demands in so far as they are found to be reasonable by the appropriate machinery.

Mr. BILLING: Will they be informed and asked for an undertaking that they will hold their hands for the Easter holidays?

Sir E. GEDDES: I shall certainly inform them of what is being done. I think they know it already. As for getting an undertaking I propose to introduce the measure and then to endeavour to arrange with the men on the one side and the employers on the other to see that the matter should be dealt with in a reasonable way.

Oral Answers to Questions — LIGHTS REGULATION COMMITTEE.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 23.
asked the Minister of Transport when he proposes to present the two interim Reports of the Lights Regulation Committee; whether he will give the House an opportunity of discussing them before any action is taken; whether such action will be by legislation or by regulation; and, if by regulation, will the House have an opportunity of discussing the Orders before they are put in force?

Sir E. GEDDES: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to a similar question from the Noble Lord, the Member for South Battersea, on March 22nd. I intend to publish the two Reports referred to at an early date.

Mr. THOMSON: Will an opportunity be given to the House of discussing the Reports?

Sir E. GEDDES: Perhaps my hon. Friend will read the somewhat lengthy reply I gave on the previous occasion.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHANNEL TUNNEL.

Commander Viscount CURZON: 25.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is yet in a position to make any statement with reference to the Channel Tunnel; and, if not, whether he can say if all the Departments concerned have yet reported upon the proposal and if it has as yet been considered by the Cabinet?

The PRIME MINISTER: Last week I informed my hon. Friend, the Member for Great Yarmouth (Sir Arthur Fell), that no answer could be given until after Easter.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

Lord ROBERT CECIL: 26.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is the policy of the British Government to press for the earliest possible meeting of the assembly of the League of Nations; and if so, whether they have formed any opinion as to when that meeting can take place.

The PRIME MINISTER: I have not yet had an opportunity of discussing this matter with my right hon. Friend, our representative on the Council of the League of Nations, but I hope to do so shortly. The time and place of meeting of the Assembly is, of course, a matter for the Council to decide, and I will ask my right hon. Friend whether the matter is to be discussed at a forthcoming meeting of the Council.

Lord R. CECIL: Will my right hon. Friend give an answer if I put another question down for the first day after the Recess?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir. I think the Council of the League will meet here in the course of the next few days.

Oral Answers to Questions — STATE PENSIONERS (NECESSITOUS CASES).

Lieut.-Colonel W. GUINNESS: 27.
asked the Prime Minister whether the claims of teachers who retired prior to 1st April, 1918, will be considered by the Cabinet Committee appointed to inquire into the question of State pensioners?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin): The answer is in the affirmative.

Mr. DEVLIN: Does that include the teachers in Ireland?

Mr. BALDWIN: I am afraid I do not know.

Mr. DEVLIN: You do not know! Then who does know?

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

ALBANIA.

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: 28.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that in December, 1916, the French authorities officially recognised the purely Albanian character of the town and district of Koritza, and set up an Albanian republic there; and whether consideration will be given to this fact when Albanian affairs come before the Supreme Council?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am not aware that the action alluded to was of the official character ascribed to it. All relevant facts connected with Albanian affairs have been and will continue to be considered by the Supreme Council.

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: 29.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has received any information to the effect that the Serbian and Jugo-Slav forces have descended into the plains in the vicinity of the Boyana River and Scutari, Albania; whether, in view of this advance, the situation is tense and liable to be aggravated if any collision between these forces and the Albanian mountain tribes in the neighbourhood of Scutari takes place; and whether steps will be taken by the Supreme Council to guard against a raid taking place similar to that on Fiume?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Obviously the situation would be aggravated if any such collision as is spoken of in the second part of the question took place. The Supreme Council will certainly use all its influence to promote a peaceful settlement.

POLAND.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 34.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Supreme Council has yet received copies of the peace terms proposed by the Polish Government to the Soviet Government of Russia; if so, whether the proposed peace terms will be published; what progress has been made in the peace negotiations between Poland and Soviet Russia; and whether His Majesty's Government was represented in any way at the negotiations, or will be represented?

The PRIME MINISTER: His Majesty's Minister at Warsaw has received a Note from the Polish Minister for Foreign Affairs, in which were outlined certain of
the principles on which the Polish Government propose to open negotiations with the Soviet Government. It is not for His Majesty's Government to publish this Note. As regards the third and fourth parts of the hon. and gallant Member's question, the peace negotiations have not yet started, and I am unable at this stage to say whether or not a British representative will attend them when they do commence.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask whether the Note was sent to His Britannic Majesty's representative at Warsaw in order that an opinion might be expressed from the other Allies of Poland on these terms? In other words, have we no interest at all in the matter, or is it being left entirely to the Poles?

The PRIME MINISTER: It must be left to the Poles to make their own terms with the Soviet Government.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: But that has not been done in the case of any other Ally. We have been very interested in the others.

The PRIME MINISTER: If they fail to come to terms we must consider our attitude.

TRIPARTITE GUARANTEE (FRANCE).

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: 38.
asked the Prime Minister whether the rejection of the Peace Treaty by the united States Senate in any way affects the tripartite guarantee to France against future German aggression; and, if so, whether His Majesty's Government proposes to withdraw from such guarantee, thus leaving our Ally without the proposed protection?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Treaty between France and the United States is a separate instrument, which, so far as I am aware, has not been accepted or rejected by the United States Senate. There is no question of His Majesty's Government withdrawing from the joint guarantee to France, but should the United States Senate decide not to ratify the Treaty, a new situation would be created, which would demand further consideration.

Lieut.-Colonel C. LOWTHER: May I ask if the attention of the Prime Minister has been drawn to the speech made last Thursday by M. Barthou on this very
subject, and does he not, without justification, charge the Prime Minister with a gross departure from the original Peace Treaties?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would rather not say. That speech, however, was repudiated, not merely by the French Prime Minister, but, as far as I can make out, by the vast majority of the French people. We all make speeches that, I daresay, we wish we had not made; and, as far as indications go, M. Barthou himself is very sorry indeed that he ever said what he did.

AUSIRIA AND HUNGARY.

Major ENTWISTLE: 44.
asked the Prime Minister if he can say when he proposes to give the House an opportunity of discussing the Peace Treaties with Austria and Hungary; and when it is anticipated that the Order in Council terminating the War will be promulgated?

The PRIME MINISTER: I hope that the Bill in connection with the Austrian Treaty may be introduced shortly after the House reassembles. The Order in Council referred to in the last part of the question will be promulgated after the last of the Treaties has been ratified.

Major M. WOOD: Will there be an Order in Council in regard to War with Austria and Hungary before Turkey is dealt with.

The PRIME MINISTER: I think not. But I would not like to answer that question without notice.

Major WOOD: In view of the fact that there was one dealing with Germany alone, will there not be one dealing with Austria and Hungary?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am not sure there was one. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] However, I could not answer without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

TRADE DELEGATION.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 30.
asked the Prime Minister when the trade delegation to this country from Soviet Russia may be expected to arrive, and what is the cause of the delay?

The PRIME MINISTER: The delegation of representatives of the Russian co-operative societies referred to is already on its way to this country and may be expected to arrive before long. There has been no delay in making the arrangements necessary for this visit.

Oral Answers to Questions — RATE OF EXCHANGE (RUPEE).

Major GLYN: 33.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that various industries are being hampered and industrial development brought almost to a standstill on account of the rate of exchange of the rupee having been stabilised at 10 to the £, or 2s. for the rupee, the previous rate having been 15 to the £, or 1s. 4d. for the rupee; and whether, in view of the great importance of doing everything possible to increase production and lower the cost of living throughout the British Empire, he will have the whole question reconsidered and influence banks and other financial houses to recognise that a possible temporary loss will be compensated for in a short time by increased trade and commerce?

The MINISTER of EDUCATION (Mr. Fisher): I have been asked to reply to this question. I have no information tending to the view expressed in the first part of the question, and if my hon. and gallant Friend is referring to India, the recent Committee on Indian exchange and currency were of opinion that the development of Indian industry would not be seriously hampered by a high rate of exchange. In recommending the now ratio of exchange the Committee took due account of the effect that a high exchange might be expected to have in mitigating the rise in prices in India. I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that the matter is being carefully watched.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

ARRESTS AND DEPORTATIONS.

Mr. INSKIP: 35.
asked the Prime Minister whether, as an earnest of the intention of Parliament to entrust the management of Irish affairs to the Irish people, he will consider the advisability of announcing that no deportations or arrests of persons in Ireland except under the ordinary law shall take place during
the further passage of the Government of Ireland Bill through Parliament?

The PRIME MINISTER: I can give no such undertaking. The responsibility for the Government of Ireland rests upon His Majesty's Government, and our first duty is to protect the lives of Irish citizens, and we shall continue to take all the steps in our power to fulfil that duty.

Mr. INSKIP: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that, if this is not the time to begin to restore the ordinary law, this is the time to introduce a Home Rule Bill?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is matter for argument.

Mr. DEVLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that when persons are arrested in Ireland they shall be at once brought to trial?

The PRIME MINISTER: I wish it were possible to do so, but, so long as the present terror and intimidation exist, it is absolutely impossible to get the necessary evidence, and the hon. Gentleman knows what happened last week when there was a murder in the presence of several persons who took no part in it, and it was quite impossible to get any of them to give evidence.

Mr. DEVLIN: But when persons are arrested, are they not entitled to have a trial, so that it may be known whether really innocent persons are dragged from their homes and sent to prisons in this country without any charge being made against them?

Major O'NEILL: Before my right hon. Gentleman answers that question, may I ask him whether he is satisfied that proper means are being taken by the Government to protect those who are having to carry out with the greatest difficulty and danger the authority of His Majesty's Government?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have an answer later on this subject, and perhaps my hon. and gallant Gentleman will wait for that.

Mr. DEVLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman please answer my question as to what opportunity is to be given to persons who may be innocent, as I believe many of them are, and who are arrested, taken from their homes, sent
to prisons in this country, and no charge is made against them, and no opportunity given them to defend themselves?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have only to say, as I said before, that if we were confident that those who had evidence to give of the commission of crime, who witnessed it with their own eyes, came forward freely, as they do in every other country, to give evidence, then we could rest satisfied with the ordinary machinery of the law; but, under present conditions, it is quite impossible to do so, and we must take such measures as are essential, in our opinion, to safeguard the rights of innocent people.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that courts-martial are being held every day in the week in Ireland, and that there is nothing to prevent people being put on trial before courts-martial, at any rate; that courts of summary jurisdiction meet every day in Ireland, and judges go on circuit every week; and, having regard to that fact, will he tell us why those men are detained without trial, and is it not a fact that the process is of this kind: when there is any evidence, you put them on trial before a court-martial, and when there is no evidence, you intern them in Wormwood Scrubs?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is not the case. My hon. Friend knows as well as I do that the whole difficulty arises from the gross intimidation that goes on, which prevents people who, probably, themselves have not the least sympathy with these crimes, from coming forward as they would in any other country to give evidence against the criminals, and so long as that condition of things prevails we must resort to abnormal methods.

Mr. DEVLIN: May I ask whether the more powerful the measures of suppression, the less successful the Government is in securing convictions, and Ireland is in a worse condition to-day—

Mr. SPEAKER: That matter can be raised in Debate to-day and to-morrow.

GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL (COMMITTIEE).

Sir KEITH FRASER: 41.
asked the Prime Minister if he will consider the
question of the Government of Ireland Bill being submitted to a Joint Committee of both Houses during its Committee stage?

The PRIME MINISTER: We have considered this suggestion, but have come to the conclusion that it is not the best method of dealing with the Bill.

Sir KEITH FRASER: If this Bill is committed to a Committee of the whole House, is there likely to be an Autumn Recess?

SER NEVIL MACREADY.

Mr. C. PALMER: (by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is true that Lieut.-General Sir F. Shaw, who has been in command of the troops in Ireland since May, 1918, is to be succeeded forthwith by General Sir Nevil Macready, Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whether there are any grounds for the assumption that the Government have decided upon new and stronger measures for the suppression of lawlessness, and, if so, with a view to re-assuring the law-abiding elements in Ireland he can make any statement to the House?

The PRIME MINISTER: In view of the fact that the retirement of General Sir F. Shaw from the Irish Command was impending, the Government have decided to appoint in his place General Sir Nevil Macready, who has not only had a distinguished military career, but also police experience as head of the largest police force in the world. The Government believe that the appointment of General Macready, who combines both military and police experience and remarkable powers of organisation with exceptional judgment and tact, will support and strengthen the administration of the law in Ireland.

Lord ROBERT CECIL: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman can tell us how it was that Mr. Alan Bell was not, apparently, under police protection at the time this terrible murder was committed?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid I could not answer that without notice.

Mr. DEVLIN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, having recited the qualifications of this military gentleman for this particular post, he can tell us what was his experience in connection with the
Ulster Rebellion? He was sent over to deal with the Ulster Rebellion: did he put that down?

The PRIME MINISTER: I believe he was sent to Ulster, and I believe that by common consent he behaved with considerable judgment and tact, and that there was no trouble during the time he was there. That is exactly the position of things I would like to see there now.

Mr. DEVLIN: Had General Macready anything to do with the appointment of those rebels to be judges in Ireland? Was that the measure of his tact and efficiency?

Captain REDMOND: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that General Macready will exercise the same tact now in regard to the rest of Ireland as he did with regard to Ulster?

Mr. PALMER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that General Macready has the confidence of the British public?

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL ASSURANCE COMPANIES.

Mr. PALMER: 37.
asked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the revelations made by the departmental committee on the business of industrial assurance companies and collecting societies, and the failure of the law as it at present stands to protect the thrifty poor from exploitation at the hands of unscrupulous agencies, the Government propose to introduce legislation at the earliest possible moment to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have been asked to reply. I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on the 23rd March to the question of the hon. Member for Keighley.

Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman take action at an early date to prevent the poor of the country being exploited by these large assurance companies, as they have been for many years past?

The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot assume that that is the case.

Mr. BILLING: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that insuring the lives, even of the poorest, is a matter
for the State and not of private gamblers?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is a very big proposition which I ventured to look into some time ago.

Mr. PALMER: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Report of the Committee itself actually accused these societies of exploiting the poor in their own interests?

Oral Answers to Questions — REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT.

WIDOWS (PARLIAMENTARY ELECTORS).

Mr. HOGGE: 43.
asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that in cases where a man on the Parliamentary register who is also on the local government register dies leaving a widow who at that time is qualified as a Parliamentary elector in respect of her husband's occupation, registration officers are leaving off the new register the name of the widow, though she continues in occupation of the same premises without any break; whether such a course is necessary under the Representation of the People Act, 1918; whether the Bill now before Parliament provides for the remedy of this anomaly; and, if so, whether the Government will grant all possible facilities for its early passage into law?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Dr. Addison): I have been asked to reply to this question. I have no power to express an authoritative opinion on the point, and I have no information as to the course followed by registration officers in such cases. Under the Bill referred to a woman would be entitled to be registered as a Parliamentary elector in respect of her own residence, and no similar doubt would arise.

Mr. HOGGE: Does my right hon. Friend know that a vast number of the widows of discharged men have been left off the register on this account in the present courts?

Dr. ADDISON: We have no information to that effect. If my hon. Friend will supply me with information I will have any cases looked into.

REGISTER (ANNUAL).

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the need for economy and the estimated
saving of £700,000 annually which might be effected, he will now return to the pre-War practice of publishing only one register a year under the Representation of the People Act?

Mr. BALDWIN: I am aware that the saving is estimated to be approximately as stated. The question of returning to the practice of publishing one register a year will arise on consideration in Standing Committee of proposed Amendments of the Representation of the People Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Will not the Government support that Amendment, in view of the fact that two registers a year were instituted during the period of demobilisation and resettlement of industry, and that there is now much less movement in the country, and much less need for this measure?

Mr. BALDWIN: We are endeavouring to go in the direction of that economy desired by ray hon. and gallant Friend.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the local authorities in Scotland are in favour of this amendment?

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is not only the £700,000 a year in printing alone this is involved, but the other expenses of inquiries, etc.?

COLLECTION OF BALLOT PAPERS.

Mr. C. PALMER: 36.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government have now come to a decision in regard to shortening the period allowed for the collection of ballot papers from absent voters, or, alternatively, making arrangements under which their votes could be received by the date of the general poll?

The PRIME MINISTER: I hope that it will be possible to make a statement shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMAN WAR CRIMINALS.

EX-KAISER.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: 39.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the refusal of the Dutch Government to hand over the ex-Kaiser for trial, the Law Officers of the Crown have been, or will be, con-
sulted as to the possibility of impeaching him in his absence in respect of alleged breaches of the laws of war and numerous crimes against humanity of which, from time to time, he has been accused by His Majesty's Government?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid that would be a rather futile proceeding.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Why futile?

The PRIME MINISTER: Well, because it would be.

Mr. DEVLIN: Try him in Ulster!

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: 40.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in connection with the impending trial by the German courts of alleged war criminals, it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to be legally represented at such proceedings, with an interpreter, with a view to a full Report being furnished to this House?

Lieut.-Colonel LOWTHER: 54.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has any further information to give the House in reference to the trial of German war criminals?

The PRIME MINISTER: This matter is at present under consideration with the Allies, and I can make no further statement at present.

Mr. BILLING: May we assume, under these circumstances, that at least, so far as the Kaiser is concerned, the question of trial has now passed out of the minds of the authorities?

Oral Answers to Questions — BANK HOLIDAYS (EASTER SATURDAY).

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: 42.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to grant, a half-day's holiday to men employed in banks for the Saturday before Easter?

Mr. BALDWIN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on the 25th ultimo to the hon. Member for Broxtowe.

Oral Answers to Questions — EXPENDITURE (NATIONAL AND LOCAL).

Mr. HURD: 45.
asked the Prime Minister what steps are contemplated, in accordance with the Government statement of 17th July last, to devise for
enactment this Session an equitable basis of division of local expenditure between the national and local exchequers; and whether, seeing the growing urgency of the matter, he will appoint a small Committee of this House to assist in formulating exact proposals?

The PRIME MINISTER: I fully realise the importance of this subject. The Exchequer contribution to local expenditure has already been largely increased, in part automatically as local expenditure rises, and in part owing to recent legislation. It has been the hope of every Government that they will be able to deal with this matter comprehensively, but this Session is obviously too crowded for legislation on the subject. As to appointing a Committee, there have been many investigations of this character. I appointed a Committee, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, as late as 1914, and I am not sure there is much to be gained at this stage by setting up another.

Mr. HURD: Has the right hon. Gentleman forgotten the assurance from that Bench last July, that this matter was engaging close attention with a view to action this Session?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have already pointed out to my hon. Friend that, so far as further contributions to Local Authorities go, we have taken action. If my hon. Friend means that we should this Session deal with the whole of this vast and complicated local taxation question I think that is quite impossible, as my hon. Friend should know.

Mr. HURD: Was not the assurance given from the opposite Bench, that an attempt would be made to find a basis of settlement during the present Session?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, I know; but a basis of settlement really means entering into the whole question of the relations between local and Imperial taxation, which is a vast subject—and the hon. Gentleman must know that.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT BILL.

Mr. J. DAVISON: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has received a resolution from the Seafarers' Joint Council
expressing surprise and dissatisfaction at his refusal to receive a deputation from the Council regarding the demand made for the inclusion of seafarers in the Hours of Employment Bill; and whether he will reconsider his decision in this matter?

The PRIME MINISTER: I thought a better purpose would be served by the Council placing their case before the Ministers in charge of the Hours of Employment Bill, and I therefore arranged for my right hon. Friends the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Labour to receive a deputation, which they agreed to do on Friday last at 3 p.m. Since then I received a letter from my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields, urging me, if possible, to attend the meeting. I accordingly wrote to him on the 24th instant to the effect that if at all possible I would endeavour to put in an appearance at the deputation which my right hon. Friends would be receiving from the Council, but that if I failed to attend, and if the Joint Council felt that they could not come to an agreement with the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Labour, then I promised to consider the matter further. I now understand that the meeting was cancelled at the Council's request.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT FACTORIES (ALTERNATIVE WORK).

Mr. ADAMSON: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether any decision has been come to affecting the future of Woolwich Arsenal and other Government factories; and whether he is prepared to make a statement on the Government's policy with regard to the provision of alternative work in these factories, in order to avoid discharges of workmen and employ the machinery on useful and productive work?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Government, in accordance with their promise, are doing all they can to provide alternative work in the present abnormal conditions.

Mr. G. TERRELL: In view of the statement made as to the cost of working the Woolwich Arsenal factory, before any extension of this principle is made will the right hon. Gentleman appoint a Select Committee to investigate and examine as to the cost?

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMENIANS (SUPPLY OF MUNITIONS).

Mr. HAILWOOD: 50.
asked if the Government have refused to let the Armenians have guns and ammunition, to defend themselves against the Turks.

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — MOTORISTS (FINES).

Viscount CURZON: 55.
asked the Minister of Transport what is at present done with the money received from motorists by means of fines for infringements of the Motor Car Acts; and whether in any future legislation he will take steps to ensure that such fines will be paid into the Imperial Exchequer?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. Fines imposed under these Acts like other police court fines not specially allocated by Statute are paid into local funds. The proposal to divert them to the Exchequer might be considered in the event of legislation, but I cannot say what conclusion would be arrived at.

Oral Answers to Questions — PETROL (PROFITEERING SUB-COMMITTEE).

Mr. ATKEY: 61.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the statement in the Report of the Profiteering Sub-Committee on Petrol and other motor fuels that grossly excessive profits are being made in connection with the import of petrol; whether he will state the price at which the Anglo-Persian Oil Company is selling its petrol for importation; and whether he will give the name of the company to which the Anglo-Persian Oil Company's petrol is sold?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir HAMAR GREENWOOD (Secretary, Department of Overseas Trade): My attention has been drawn to this Report which is now, I understand, under consideration by the Board of Trade. With reference to the second and third parts of the question, the Anglo-Persian Oil Company's output of petrol is at present sold under contract to the Royal Dutch Shell Group. I am unable to state the price ruling under the contract.

Oral Answers to Questions — PAYMENT OF MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT.

Sir ROBERT NEWMAN: 62.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how the salaries paid to Members of the House of Commons compare with the salaries paid to Members of corresponding Houses of Parliament of the principal countries in Europe; and whether any travelling expenses are allowed to members of those chambers?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I would refer the hon. Member to Parliamentary Paper Miscellaneous No. 7 (1911), which contains the latest information on this subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH PASSPORTS.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 65.
asked why the British Consulate in New York has continued to visa British passports carried by British subjects returning to this country; if instructions were issued for the discontinuance of this inconvenience on 21st May of last year; and whether this matter is still under the control of the War Office as stated on the same occasion?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Harmsworth): Under the regulations of the United States Government all foreigners desirous of leaving America must have their passports endorsed by the local representative of the country to which they belong before permission to depart is given. This provision has, however, lately been modified so that such endorsement is not necessary if the passport has been issued within six months of the date of departure, or if issued previously, has been endorsed within such period. H.M. Consul in New York, therefore, continues to give the endorsement to British subjects who require it in order to comply with the United States regulations, so that they may be able to leave the country. Instructions were given by the War Office on 21st May last that British subjects no longer required a British visa to enable them to enter the United Kingdom. This matter is no longer under the control of the War Office.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: If that is so, why was I assured that it was to be discontinued on the 21st of May last year?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: It was a regulation made by the United States?

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 66.
asked the Under, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that, notwithstanding the statement that the necessity for a British visa on British passports for British subjects returning to the United Kingdom was abolished about a year ago, British subjects returning to England as lately as last week were held up for hours for this purpose; whether he is aware that the French consul at Turin refuses to visa any British passport until the same has been stamped by the British Consul, who charges 16 lira for his trouble; and whether, seeing that it is just as difficult to obtain a British endorsement on a passport as a visa, and that there appears to be nothing given gratis on application, he will make further enquiries?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Under the regulations of the French Government all foreigners desirous of travelling through France en route from Italy to the United Kingdom must have their passports endorsed by the local representative of the country to which they belong before the French visa is given. Our Regulations provide that in such oases the British endorsement should be given gratis and without delay. Enquiries are being made as to the circumstances under which British subjects were delayed for hours owing to the necessity of obtaining the British endorsement and as to why a charge of 16 lira was made for such endorsement by H.M. Consul at Turin.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Has the Parliamentary Secretary conveyed the feeling of this Houe on this subject to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and is he making representations to other Governments with a view to abolishing the system?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: That question is under consideration.

Mr. G. TERRELL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in consequence of this system, people are leaving this country and going to France and they are afterwards held up at Calais and then they are sent back? A case of this kind occurred as late as yesterday.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: That has not been brought to my notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN.

LETTING OFF FARMS, BORDER COUNTIES.

Captain BROWN: 67.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture whether he is aware that the system of letting off farms is causing great dissatisfaction in the border counties and that many good farmers are in consequence deprived of the means whereby to earn their living; and if he will cause a definite inquiry to be made into this question to ascertain the full facts and causes, its relation to production, and to suggest a remedy for this cause of social unrest?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): I am aware of the dissatisfaction arising out of the system to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, and I doubt whether any useful purpose would be served by making further inquiries. At the same time the attention of county councils in the North of England will again be specially called to the desirability of acquiring off farms to meet the requirements of ex-service applicants.

LAND SETTLERS, NORTHUMBERLAND.

Captain BROWN: 68.
asked what progress has been made in settling ex-soldiers on the land in Northumberland?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Previous to the 25th inst. the Northumberland County Council had been able to provide only one ex-service applicant with a small holding. On that date, however, the council obtained vacant possession of 2,010 acres, which have been recently acquired, and they will now be in a position to provide holdings shortly for a considerable proportion of the 190 approved applicants in the county.

Captain BROWN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these 2,000 acres consist mainly of improved moorland seven or eight miles from the station, and is that a likely place for the settlement of these men?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I was informed that it was a very suitable place.

GERMAN GOODS IMPORTED.

Mr. PERRING: 82.
asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the shipment of German goods
which arrived per ss. "Virgelia," from Hamburg last week at the Free Trade Wharf, namely, 524 bales of writing and other paper, 143 cases of toys, 90 cases of electro-plated articles, 600 packages of furniture, 600 cases of leaf tobacco, 485 bundles of chairs, 21 cases of watches, 390 cases of hollow glass, and consignments of pianos, clocks, gramophones, motorcars and lorries, and surgical instruments; and, inasmuch as such shipments indicate the present inability of the manufacturers in this country to satisfy the needs of the markets requiring our productions, whether he will consider the desirability of increasing the number of ex-Service men under training in such trades, thereby promoting his great desire to see all ex-Service men in full and remunerative employment?

Mr. PARKER: Disabled ex-Service men are being trained in all the trades referred to by the hon. Member, except paper-making and tobacco-growing, which do not appear to be suitable or practicable. Existing facilities are being substantially increased wherever the prospects of employment justify increase and increase is possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH CELLULOSE & CHEMICAL MANUFACTURING COMPANY.

Mr. SITCH: 71.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions what is the precise sum in cash put into the British Cellulose and Chemical Manufacturing Company by way of share capital at its inception and subsequently; and what shares, distinguishing preference and ordinary, in the new British Cellulose and Chemical Manufacturing (Parent) Company, Limited, will be received by the shareholders in the former company in consideration of the sale to the new company of the share capital of the former company?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. Hope): With regard to the first part of the question, I would refer the hen. Member to the Report of the British Cellulose Committee under Lord Sumner's chairmanship of last year.
With regard to the second part of the question, the hon. Member is evidently under a misapprehension. All the shares
(except one) in the British Cellulose and Chemical Manufacturing Co., Ltd., are already owned by the British Cellulose and Chemical Manufacturing (Parent) Co., Ltd., and have been so owned since March, 1918.

Oral Answers to Questions — PENSIONS OFFICE, NEWCASTLE-ON-TYNE.

Mr. GRATTAN DOYLE: 72.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware of the serious shortage of labour in the building industry throughout the country, and especially in the area covered by the Newcastle-on-Tyne Building Trade Association; whether he is aware of the proposal to erect a largo building for use as a pensions offfice in Newcastle-on-Tyne; and whether, in view of the hardships inflicted upon the whole people by the pressing housing problem, he will take immediate steps so that work on this and all similar buildings is suspended until the housing needs of the community are adequately met?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir Alfred Mond): I am not aware of any special shortage of labour in the area referred to apart from the rest of the country. I regret that the erection of the building in question, which is urgently required by the Ministry of Pensions, cannot be postponed as the existing staff is housed in hotel premises, which must and should be surrendered as soon as possible, and no other suitable premises are available. I fully appreciate the difficulties as to housing, and my Department has already restricted its building to works of pressing urgency.

Mr. DOYLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the intensity of feeling in the country with regard to the shortage of houses, and will he now see that it shall be the policy of the Government to suspend all unnecessary building operations on Government buildings of any class until the needs of the community have been supplied?

Sir A. MOND: I am fully aware of the feeling in the country on the housing question. But there is also intense feeling about the retention of commandeered premises. These premises have to be surrendered and the staff must be housed somewhere.

Mr. DOYLE: What is the real necessity for putting up this enormous building at such enormous expense at Newcastle-on-Tyne at the present time when nobody wants it?

Sir A. MOND: It is needed for the staff of the Pensions Ministry. If the staff is not housed no pensions can be paid.

Mr. DOYLE: But is not the staff already adequately housed? Will it suffer any unnecessary inconvenience if this building is delayed until the needs of the community have been supplied?

Sir A. MOND: The hon. Member could not have listened to my answer. The staff is now housed in commandeered hotel premises, which have to be surrendered and alternative premises must be found.

Mr. BILLING: Why must these premises be surrendered? Is it not the fact that a great many premises have not been surrendered? Before entering into such building operations, will not the right hon. Gentleman consult the Minister of Health?

Sir A. MOND: I shall be very pleased to consult my right hon. Friend. But the great complaint against my Department is one of not surrendering commandeered buildings.

Oral Answers to Questions — REGENT'S PARK (PLAYING GROUNDS).

Mr. HOPKINS: 73.
asked the First Commissioner of Works if his attention has been directed to the slow progress of the repairs to the playing grounds in Regent's Park; and if he will make a special effort to have as much ground as possible fit for cricket this summer?

Sir A. MOND: Everything possible is being done to restore the playing grounds in the park, but they were so seriously damaged during the War by their use for military training that it will, of necessity, be some time before all of them will be available for games. About one-half of the area in the centre of the park will be fit for cricket this summer.

Oral Answers to Questions — SEA TRAINING (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).

Sir OWEN PHILIPPS: 75.
asked the President of the Board of Education
whether he can yet state the decision of His Majesty's Government with regard to the Report of the Departmental Committee on Sea Training?

Mr. FISHER: The answer is in the negative. I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on the 22nd instant to the hon. Member for the Tradeston Division of Glasgow.

Sir O. PHILIPPS: In view of the great necessity for pressing on this question, will the right hon. Gentleman favourably consider pressing forward the decision?

Mr. FISHER: It is a very important question affecting a great number of Departments. It is being very carefully considered, and I can assure my hon. Friend that no time will be lost.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING COLONY, MANCOTT ROYAL (RATES).

Lieut.-Colonel PARRY: 76.
asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the Government have not paid any rates since March, 1919 in respect of their property at Mancott Royal, the reservoir at Hawarden, the cottage at Mancott Lane, and for land taken from Well House Farm, Broughton, in the county of Flint; that, in consequence of this delay, the overseers are unable to meet their liabilities and the guardians concerned will be unable to pay their county rate precept; and if he will state when payment will be made?

Mr. BALDWIN: I understand that the rates in respect of the Ministry of Munitions housing colony at Mancott Royal have now been paid. The other items enumerated by the hon. and gallant Member are comparatively small matters in the total claim, and steps are being taken to expedite the payment.

Oral Answers to Questions — INJURY IN WAR COMPENSATION ACTS.

Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 78.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can state when an increase in the rate of allowances will be granted to widows and orphans pensioned under the Injury in War Compensation Acts; and if he is aware that the delay in settling this
matter presses very hardly on a number of very poor persons, the present rate of pension being half of the royal naval rate?

Mr. PARKER: I have been asked to reply to this question. This matter has been under the consideration of the Admiralty and the Treasury, and it is anticipated that a decision as to the increased allowances which it is proposed to pay under the Injuries in War (Compensation) Acts will shortly be reached.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

DISABLED MEN (TRAINING GRANTS).

Major EDWARDS: 79.
asked the Minister of Labour whether full allowances are payable to disabled men awaiting training; and, if not, whether he will consider the Amendment of the Regulations with a view to granting these men, during the time they are awaiting their training, the full allowances given during training?

Mr. PARKER: As was stated on the 3rd December last in answer to a similar question by the hon. and gallant Member for East Bradford, a disabled man awaiting training is not entitled to receive the training allowance. He is, however, entitled to claim out-of-work donation in addition to his disability pension if unable to obtain employment. I may perhaps take this opportunity of stating that His Majesty's Government have proposed further to extend the Out-of-work-Donation Scheme after March 31st by permitting ex-members of the Forces whose right to donation has expired to apply for a further grant of donation payable during the period ending 31st July for a maximum of 12 weeks at a rate of 20s. per week. A similar extension will also be made in the case of Merchant Seamen.

CITY OF LONDON POLICE (LANCE-CORPORAL C. J. ANDREWS).

Earl WINTERTON: 84.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will give instructions for Lance-Corporal Cyril James Andrews, No. 163,843, who is in receipt of a pension of 12s. a week under pension identity certificate No. S.F.O. 28,282, to go before a medical board without delay, as he has passed the examination and medical test as absolutely fit in all respects for entry
into the City of London police force, and is waiting to take up employment in that force?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY OF PENSIONS (Colonel Sir James Craig): Lance-Corporal Andrews was last examined by a Medical Board in October, 1919, and, as the pension then awarded to him runs for one year, he will not be re-examined until October, 1920. The Medical Boards of the Ministry of Pensions only examine men for the purpose of assessing the compensation due to them, and if Mr. Andrews has passed the medical tests imposed by the City of London Police authorities, the fact that he is in receipt of pension should be no bar to his employment.

Earl WINTERTON: Is the hon. Gentle man aware that the City of London Police Regulations lay it down that no person in receipt of a pension can enter that force, and seeing that this man claims he is no longer suffering from the disability in respect of which the pension was granted, and is anxious to join this force, will he allow him to be re-examined?

Sir J. CRAIG: My Noble Friend will, I am sure, understand that our medical examination is not in regard to the prospect of employment, but is concerned with the disability from which the man suffered, and when this man comes up for reexamination, no doubt the medical officer will report if he is free from the disability.

Earl WINTERTON: This is a very hard case. Horn is a man who can get employment if the Minister will let him have a Medical Board. If not, he loses his chance.

Sir J. CRAIG: The matter is being inquired into, and we are trying to get into communication with the police authorities. Our concern, of course, is with the pension.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL LIABILITIES DEPARTMENT (GRANTS).

Major EDWARDS: 80.
asked the Minister of Labour whether grants made by the Civil Liabilities Department are confined to those who were their own employers prior to enlistment; and, if so,
whether he will consider the cases of employed persons who, through enlistment, have been prevented from resuming their pre-war occupations?

Mr. PARKER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. An employed person who is in receipt of a disability pension and is prevented by disability attributable to or aggravated by his military service from accepting suitable employment may be assisted under the Regulations of the Civil Liabilities Scheme, 1918, to start in business on his own account.

Oral Answers to Questions — LABOUR MINISTRY (STAFFORD OFFICE).

Mr. BLAIR: 81.
asked the Minister of Labour if an office of the Ministry has been transferred from Stafford to Birmingham; if so, what is the estimated cost; and what are the resulting advantages?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL (Treasurer of the Household): If my hon. Friend will be good enough to let me know the name of the officer he has in mind I will have inquiries made into the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

BUILDING MATERIAL.

Mr. ALFRED SHORT: 85.
asked the Minister of Health whether any instructions have been issued to local authorities that best bricks and stone are not to be used in the housing schemes?

Dr. ADDISON: No, Sir. No such instructions have been issued: but obviously local authorities will not us" the most expensive materials, where others which are entirely satisfactory for their purpose can be obtained at a lower price.

WREKIN BYE-ELECTION (STAMPING BALLOT PAPERS).

Mr. PALMER: 86.
asked the Minister of Health whether the attention of the Government has been called to the fact that, at a recent bye-election in the Wrekin Division of Salop, a considerable number of votes were disallowed, not on account of an irregularity on the part of the voters, but because the presiding officers had
failed to impress the ballot papers with the official stamp; and whether, having regard to the risk of disfranchising electors owing to the carelessness or otherwise of polling officials, he will call the special attention of returning officers to the importance of seeing that the requirements of the Law are strictly carried out?

Dr. ADDISON: I am informed by the Acting Returning Officer that at the recent bye-election for the Wrekin Division of the County of Salop, ten ballot papers were rejected on account of the omission of the official mark. I am convinced that every care is taken to ensure that the official mark is stamped on the ballot papers issued to the electors. The duty is, I am satisfied, well known to returning officers, so that I see no reason at present for adopting the course suggested by the hon. Member.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he notices that this question is addressed to the Ministry of Health, and whether it is not time for that Ministry to be relieved of the extraordinary duty of impressing stamps upon voting papers?

Dr. ADDISON: We are doing our best to arrange for the Order in Council so that this duty may be properly allocated at an early date.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: To whom?

Mr. DEVLIN: What remedy have the voters or candidates if these mistakes are made by officials? I know of one case where the votes were destroyed because they were not stamped?

Mr. PALMER: If the majority of the hon. Member for the Wrekin, instead of being what it was, namely, had been 9, what would have been the position if 10 votes had been destroyed in that way?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a hypothetical question.

Oral Answers to Questions — REGISTRARS OF BIRTHS, MARRIAGES AND DEATHS.

Mr. SITCH: 87.
asked the Minister of Health whether registrars of births, marriages, and deaths are excluded by statute from participation in any awards conferring benefits in the form of increased
salaries or emoluments upon Poor Law officers; whether he is aware that, almost alone among public servants, registrars of these vital occurrences have secured no enhancement of their financial position in connection with their appointments; whether he is aware that the fees they are authorised to charge are to-day the same as before the War; and can he see his way to an early revision of these fees and the consideration of any other means whereby these necessary public servants may be able to meet the heavy increase in their cost of living?

Dr. ADDISON: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on the 3rd instant to the hon. and gallant Member for Edmonton (Lieut. Colonel Sir A. Warren), a copy of which I am sending to the hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURAL RATES ACT.

Mr. CAUTLEY: 88.
asked the Minister of Health whether he can state what is the present amount of the grant paid to the local taxation account under the provisions of the Agricultural Rates Act, 1896, and what it was in 1897; and what is the present total rate collected and spent by the spending authorities under such Act in England and Wales in 1918 and in 1897?

Dr. ADDISON: The present amount of the annual grant to be paid into the Local Taxation Account under the provisions of the Agricultural Rates Act, 1896, is £1,323,827: in 1897 the amount was certified at £1,331,034. The total amount of rates, to which the Act applies, collected in respect of the year ended March, 1897, for the spending authorities referred to was £20,800,000. The corresponding figure for 1917 (the latest year for which the returns are complete) is approximately £47,800,000. Only a small proportion of the total relates to agricultural land.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

BUTTER FROM IRELAND.

Sir J. D. REES: 89.
asked the Minister of Food whether any rule or regulation at present restricts the importation of Irish butter?

Mr. PARKER: The importation of butter from Ireland into Great Britain is governed at the present time by the Butter (Ireland) Order, 1918. This Order is to be revoked on March 31st. After that date Irish butter may be imported into Great Britain for sale free of all restriction.

SWEETENED CONDENSED MILK.

Mr. THOMAS GRIFFITHS: 91.
asked the Minister of Food whether the allowance of sugar for sweetened condensed milk is based on advice that this is a suitable form in which milk can be used for the feeding of infants?

Mr. PARKER: No, Sir. That is contrary to the view which, I understand, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health to take. The answer given by the Food Controller to a question by the hon. Member for South Poplar (Sir Alfred Yeo) on this subject, on 17th March, was intended to indicate that a demand does, in fact, exist for sweetened condensed milk for the feeding of infants—not to suggest that it is suitable for that purpose.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

HOMEWARD PASSENGER TRAFFIC.

Colonel YATE: 92.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that of the eight ships taken over from the German Government, which were stated to have been allocated for homeward passenger traffic from India this spring, two have since been cancelled and that the Peninsular and Oriental Company's agents in India, Messrs. Mackinnon, Mackenzie, and Company, state that the Admiralty's orders regarding the remaining six differ from the India Office instructions and that no accommodation is available; that large numbers of passengers in India are quite unable to secure passages, despite urgent medical grounds, for going home; that great indignation is felt at the long-continued inadequacy of passenger shipping arrangements and the Indian Commerce Department are apparently unable to get either assurances or information out of the home authorities; and what steps he is taking in the matter?

Mr. FISHER: As the answer to this question is rather a long one, I propose, if my hon. and gallant Friend is agree-
able, not to read it now, but to have it published in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The following is the information referred to:

My hon. and gallant Friend has been misinformed as regards the cancellation of any ships of the eight taken over from the German Government. All of them have been, or will be, used for homeward passenger traffic from India this spring. The ships were provided by the Ministry of Shipping on the understanding that Government, i.e., military entitled passengers, were to have priority of accommodation, and that the balance of accommodation left over was to be made over to the shipping agents for allotment, under the control of the Government of India, to civilian and non-entitled military passengers. Some weeks ago, owing to a misunderstanding, the Government of India were informed all the accommodation on seven of the ships would be reserved for military passengers, but the position has now been cleared up. Out of a total accommodation for 3,561 passengers in the eight ships, about 1,000 berths will be reserved for military-entitled passengers from India and Mesopotamia; and the remainder, amounting to between 2,500 and 2,600 berths, will be left at the disposal of the Government of India for allocation to civilian and non-entitled military passengers. In addition, four more ex-German passenger vessels will be available from India in April or early May with accommodation for approximately 1,000 passengers, all classes. All this accommodation is over and above that provided in the ordinary course by the shipping companies, which is left for non-official and non-entitled passengers. My hon. and gallant Friend may rest assured that the subject has constantly received my earnest attention, and special measures were in view some considerable time before either the Government of India or the Indian Chambers of Commerce made any representations in the matter.

PROVINCIAL LEGISLATIVE COUNCILS.

Mr. BENNETT: 93.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he can give the House the result of Lord Meston's arbitration on the claims of the non-Brahmins of the Madras Presidency to special representation in the provincial legislative council; and what decision has
been come to as to the representation of the Mahrattas in Bombay?

Mr. FISHER: The Government of India have briefly reported by telegram that Lord Meston's award reserves twenty-eight out of sixty-five elective seats for non-Brahmins, and that it proceeds on the view that something less than a clear majority of reserved scats will ensure to the non-Brahmins an effective voice in the interests of their community, while leaving them with a healthy stimulus to strive in the competition of the polls for a representation more closely relative to their numerical strength. So far as I am aware, no decision has yet been arrived at with regard to Mahrattas in Bombay.

CURRENCY POLICY.

Mr. BENNETT: 94.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he has any information showing that the currency policy recently adopted by the Government of India is stifling the export trade of that country?

Mr. FISHER: The introduction of the new policy which owing to the low level of the American exchange in February entailed a steep rise in the sterling exchange value of the rupee, was, not unnaturally, attended by considerable dislocation in Indian trade. But the Secretary of State has no information to suggest that the export trade is suffering to the extent that would be implied by the last words of the question. The situation is being carefully watched and recent indications point to a material improvement in the position.

UNEMPLOYED OFFICERS (PAY).

Colonel YATE: 95.
asked the Secretary of State for India for what reason lieutenant-colonels of the Indian Army on the unemployed list residing in India are not permitted to draw the pay of their rank at the rate of 1,150 rupees per mensum in accordance with A.R.I., vol. I., paragraph 163, which lays down that during residence in India officers remaining in the service unemployed shall receive the Indian Army pay of their rank; and whether, considering that various officers have been compelled to refund money paid to them on this account, he will issue orders that such deductions are to be repaid?

Mr. FISHER: The Secretary of State is in correspondence with the Government of India on the subject, and will communicate with my hon. and gallant Friend when a reply is received.

ARMY (EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES).

Colonel YATE: 96.
asked the Secretary of State for India what action has been taken to secure that the system of educational training now adopted in the British Army is continued on similar lines for the British troops in India; whether this system is also to be made applicable to the Indian troops; and what organisation has been established at general headquarters, Delhi, for the supervision and administration of the work?

Mr. FISHER: The Government of India have been engaged for some months in the preparation of a comprehensive scheme for the extension of the system referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend to the British Army in India, and, eventually, mutatis mutandis, to the Indian Army. A General Staff Officer, 1st Grade, of the British Service, with experience of the system in the United Kingdom, was deputed last autumn to the Commander-in-Chief's staff, to assist in working out the scheme, and I understand that the Government of India have appointed an Indian Army officer of the same rank to assist similarly in the application of the scheme to Indian units.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTHWARK BOARD OF GUAEDIANS.

Mr. SEDDON: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Health whether the Southwark Board of Guardians had been refused permission by the Ministry of Health to supply the workhouse inmates with a certain quantity of rice for supper, this being the only meal between teatime and breakfast the following morning?

Dr. ADDISON: My personal attention had not been drawn to this case until this morning. I have examined the application of the Guardians, and I share their views that the supper proposed to be given to the inmates was reasonably required. I have already given instructions that it should be sanctioned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

Sir D. MACLEAN: asked the Leader of the House whether the Government has come to any decision as to the Committee stage of the Government of Ireland Bill, whether it will be taken on the floor of the House or upstairs?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government propose after the Recess to ask the House to come to an agreement as to the time to be allocated to this Bill on the lines of the arrangement which has worked so satisfactorily in regard to financial business. If we succeed the Committee stage will be taken downstairs. I suggest, therefore, that no Division be taken on the point after the Second Reading, as even if we should find an agreement cannot be reached we will undertake that the House will subsequently be given an opportunity of voting on the subject, on the understanding, of course, that the Division will be taken without discussion.

WAR EMERGENCY LAWS (CONTINUANCE) BILL.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I beg to move,
That the Proceedings on Consideration of the Lords Amendments to the War Emergency Laws (Continuance) Bill be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Older (Sittings of the House).

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 244; Noes, 43.

Division No. 76.]
AYES.
[3.55 p.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Barnston, Major Harry
Borwick, Major G. O.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.
Barrand, A. R.
Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Bottomley, Horatio W.


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Brassey, Major H. L. C.


Amery, Lieut.-Col. Leopold C. M. S.
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Breese, Major Charles E.


Archdale, Edward Mervyn
Bennett, Thomas Jewell
Bridgeman, William Clive


Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W.
Betterton, Henry B.
Brittain, Sir Harry


Astor, Viscountess
Bigland, Alfred
Brown, Captain D. C.


Atkey, A. R.
Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Bruton, Sir James


Baldwin, Stanley
Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)
Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Blair, Major Reginald
Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.


Barnett, Major R. W.
Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel A. H.


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark


Burn, T. H. (Belfast, St. Anne's)
Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.


Butcher, Sir John George
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry


Campbell, J. D. G.
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Pearce, Sir William


Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.
Hills, Major John Waller
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike


Carter, R. A. D. (Man., Withington)
Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Perring, William George


Casey, T. W.
Hope, H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn'n, W.)
Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)


Cautley, Henry S.
Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Cayzer, Major Herbert Robin
Hopkins, John W. W.
Purchase, H. G.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.)
Houston, Robert P.
Ramsden, G. T.


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Howard, Major S. G.
Raper, A. Baldwin


Cheyne, Sir William Watson
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.


Coats, Sir Stuart
Hurd, Percy A.
Rees, Capt. J. Tudor. (Barnstaple)


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Illingworth, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Reid, D. D.


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Rodger, A. K.


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Rogers, Sir Hallewell


Coote, William (Tyrone, South)
Jephcott, A. R.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Jellett, William Morgan
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)
Jesson, C.
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Seddon, J. A.


Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid)
Johnstone, Joseph
Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Curzon, Commander Viscount
Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Simm, M. T.


Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)
Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Kellaway, Frederick George
Steel, Major S. Strang


Dean, Lieut.-Commander P. T.
Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr
Stephenson, Colonel H. K.


Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)
Kidd, James
Stewart, Gershom


Dockrell, Sir Maurice
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Donald, Thompson
Larmor, Sir Joseph
Sturrock, J. Leng


Doyle, N. Grattan
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Sugden, W. H.


Duncannon, Viscount
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)


Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Lindsay, William Arthur
Taylor, J.


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Lister, Sir R. Ashton
Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)


Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
Lloyd, George Butler
Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)


Falcon, Captain Michael
Lonsdale, James Rolston
Thomas-Stanford, Charles


Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Fell, Sir Arthur
Lowther, Lt.-Col. Claude (Lancaster)
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell. (Maryhill)


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Lynn, R. J.
Tickler, Thomas George


Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray
Townley, Maximilian G.


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
M'Guffin, Samuel
Tryon, Major George Clement


France, Gerald Ashburner
McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)
Waddington, R.


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Wallace, J.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Macmaster, Donald
Wason, John Cathcart


Gange, E. Stanley
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Wheler, Major Granville C. H.


Gardiner, James
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Camb'dge)
Malone, Major P. S. (Tottenham, S.)
Whitla, Sir William


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Manville, Edward
Wigan, Brig.-Gen. John Tyson


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Marriott, John Arthur Ransome
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Glyn, Major Ralph
Mason, Robert
Williams, Lt.-Col-Sir R. (Banbury)


Gould, James C.
Moles, Thomas
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)


Grant, James A.
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald


Grayson, Lieut.-Colonel H. M.
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.
Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert


Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Morison, Thomas Brash
Wilson, Capt. A. S. (Holderness)


Greenwood, Colonel Sir Hamar
Mosley, Oswald
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)


Greer, Harry
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Wilson-Fox, Henry


Greig, Colonel James William
Murchison, C. K.
Winterton, Major Earl


Gretton, Colonel John
Murray, Lt.-Col. Hon. A. (Aberdeen)
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Guest, Major O. (Leic., Loughboro')
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)
Wood, Major S. Hill. (High Peak)


Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Neal, Arthur
Woods, Sir Robert


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Woolcock, William James U.


Hambro, Captain Angus Valdemar
Nicholl, Commander Sir Edward
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Hanna, George Boyle
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Yate, Colonel Charles Edward


Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Harris, Sir Henry Percy
Oman, Charles William C.
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)
O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H.



Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Palmer, Charles Frederick (Wrekin)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Lord E. Talbot and Capt. Guest.


NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. F. D.
Hayward, Major Evan
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)


Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Myers, Thomas


Barnes, Major H. (Newlastle, E.)
Hirst, G. H.
Newbould, Alfred Ernest


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Irving, Dan
O'Connor, Thomas P.


Billing, Noel Pemberton-
Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)
O'Grady, Captain James


Briant, Frank
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Kiley, James D.
Raffan, Peter Wilson


Devlin, Joseph
Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)
Redmond, Captain William Archer


Donnelly, P.
Lunn, William
Rose, Frank H.


Glanville, Harold James
Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Grundy, T. W.
MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Spoor, B. G.


Harbison, Thomas James S.
Malone, Lieut.-Col. C. L. (Leyton, E.)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)




Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Wilkie, Alexander
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Waterson, A. E.
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)



Wignall, James
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Hogge and Mr. T. Griffiths.


Question put, and agreed to.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B (added in respect of the Veterinary Surgeons Act (1881) Amendment Bill): Major M'Micking.

Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to facilitate the enforcement in England and Ireland of maintenance orders made in other parts of His Majesty's Dominions and Protectorates and vice versa." [Maintenance Orders (Facilities for Enforcement) Bill [Lords].

Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to prohibit the importation of the plumage of birds and the sale or possession of plumage illegally imported," [Importation of Plumage (Prohibition) Bill [Lords].

And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Mersey Railway Act, 1900." [Mersey Railway Bill [Lords].

Mersey Railway Bill [Lords].

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Orders of the Day — GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Macpherson): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I need hardly tell the House that it is with diffidence that I rise to attempt to expound the principles of this Bill, and to move its Second Reading. This is now the fourth Bill which has been presented to this House for the better government of Ireland. My difficulty in following the great sponsors of the Bills of the past, whose expositions remain historic and are ornaments to the records of this House, will be easily appreciated, even though I have had the advantage of the exhaustive statement of my right hon. Friend and colleague (the Prime Minister) at the close of last session. It was made clear in that statement that the Government, in fulfilment of its pledges, was determined to present to this House, and to carry through definite proposals which would be an honest and sincere attempt to settle, once and for all, this age-long difference and close for ever an unpleasant chapter, a chapter remarkable because it is unique as well as unpleasant, in the history of our government of our great Empire. This is not the time, even if it were desirable, to enter into the realms of controversy, but the fact remains that, while peoples of old and new civilisations all over the world live proudly and contentedly in common Imperial bonds with us, the people of our kin, nearest to our shores, have demanded by a majority a change in their Imperial connection. Whatever else may be said, no one can gainsay the fact that the spirit of our Imperial purpose has been sustained by a breadth and generosity which cannot be equalled in the history of any other nation of the world. No one can deny that in the years that have passed we have been magnanimous in all material things towards Ireland, even if we have failed to appreciate what the historians, when dealing with her, call the impalpable.
The schemes which were put forward in the past, like the scheme which we now put forward, were put forward in good faith by a great party, but they failed. They were the schemes of a great party, defended by them with conviction and courage just as they were opposed by the other party with equal conviction and equal courage. Much has happened since 1914 when the Home Rule Act was passed and placed upon the Statute Book. A new spirit of conciliation and co-operation has entered our political life. Since then, while no one has wanted the Act of 1914, there has been a general desire in all parties that something should be done. When this Act of 1914 was placed upon the Statute Book, my right hon. Friend, the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith), gave us an undertaking that it should not be put into operation until another Act had been passed dealing with the acute question of north-east Ulster. If I remember aright, my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister, in his speech on December 22nd, stated not only that this undertaking was given by my right hon. Friend, but that it was assented to by the representatives of Nationalist Ireland. It was, therefore, an undertaking that was recognised by all parties and was bound to be honoured. I need not now go into the reasons for this, but, broadly speaking, there was a general hope that the burning question should be settled in the interests of Imperial and domestic peace, and a feeling that if what was described as "a fairly solid, homogeneous, and loyal population in the north-east of Ireland, alien in sympathy, alien in tradition, alien in religion," desired—it was in the days before the common use of that barbarous word "self-determination"—to govern themselves, in complete loyalty to the Crown, in their own way it would be an outrage in the name of self-government, to use the Prime Minister's word, to place them under the remainder of the population. I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley described the coercion of Ulster as "unthinkable." If the non-coercion of Ulster be recognised, it is equally recognised that the secession from the United Kingdom or from the Empire of Ireland, in whole or in part, can never be tolerated. Those who unthinkingly and in a spirit of bravado clamour for secession or complete separation from
the Empire do not, it is true, consider Imperial interests, but have, they ever considered the interests of their own country? Even from the material point of view, there could be no more suicidal policy. I am not going to discuss now the material prosperity of Ireland, which is notorious all over the world. The incontrovertible fact remains that its prosperity is due, and due alone, to the Imperial connection. If that connection were severed, not only would Irishmen, who in so very many cases have deserved well of the State, become aliens under the last Aliens Act, but such a severance would, among other things, alienate the sympathies of Ireland's best customers, tend to destroy her best economic interests, and close for ever the Imperial, civil, colonial, and fighting services of the Empire, which have been for so long such an important outlet for the youth of that country. Accordingly, it is maintained in the Bill that—
Notwithstanding the establishment of the Parliaments of Southern and Northern Ireland, or the Parliament of Ireland, or anything contained in this Act, the supreme authority of the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall remain unaffected and undiminished over all persons, matters, and things in Ireland, and every part thereof.
From what I have said, it is clear therefore that the Government had to approach this question of giving complete self-government to Ireland in all her domestic concerns under new conditions. For the reasons which I have given, it had inevitably to be decided that there should be two parts, each with complete local autonomy in its own territory—a Parliament for Southern Ireland and a Parliament for Northern Ireland. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his statement on 22nd December put forward four altenatives for the respective areas of these Parliaments, and after the most anxious and careful consideration of all the facts and circumstances the Government have come to the conclusion that of these alternatives the soundest and most practical is the one which was discussed if not decided upon in 1914, certainly it was decided upon in 1916, namely, an area of 26 counties for the Southern Parliament of Ireland and six counties for the Northern Parliament of Ireland. I cannot do better than state the powers, and, if I may say so, the infinite
possibilities, given a chance of these Parliaments, as described by the Prime Minister:
We propose, he said, to clothe the Irish Legislature with full constituent powers, so that they will be able, without further reference to the Imperial Parliament, and by identical legislation, to create a single they Legislature, discharging all or any of the powers not specifically reserved to the Imperial Parliament. It will then rest with the Irish people themselves to determine whether they want union and when they want union. The British Government will have nothing further to say in the matter. If the Irish electorate so determine they can return a majority in each province of Ireland with a mandate, even at the very first election, to bring about a union of the North and the South." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd December, 1919, Col. 697, Vol. 123.]
I now come to the first main proposal in the Bill—I refer to the council of Ireland. The division of Ireland, I need hardly tell the House, is distasteful to the Government, just as it is distasteful to all Irishmen, and I may say, as was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) in 1916, when he brought forward a proposed settlement involving a similar provision:
There are features in the proposed settlement which none of us voluntarily would have chosen, one or other of which for different reasons all of us dislike. This was inevitable in any arrangement which did not involve the complete triumph of one set of ideas over another.
Again, on the 25th May, 1916, after my right hon. Friend had returned from Ireland after the rebellion, he said:
I venture now to make an appeal to the House. The Government of Ireland Act is on the Statute Book. No one, so far as I know—I have said so repeatedly in the past—has ever desired or contemplated its coercive application by one set of Irishmen to another."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th May, 1916, Col. 2310, Vol. 82.]
Again, on the 10th July, 1916, he said:
To relieve any possible doubt on that point, let mo say, speaking for those who, like myself, look forward and are anxious for a united Ireland, that we recognise and agree in the fullest extent that such union can only be brought about with, and can never be brought about without, the freewill and assent of the excluded area."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th July, 1916, Col. 61, Vol. 84.]
In this statement the right hon. Gentleman reluctantly contemplated the division of Ireland, and recent events, I am sorry to say, have only strengthened the view that an undivided Ireland for the purposes of legislation of this kind is in the meantime impossible. All of us hope
that the division may be temporary only, and our arrangement has, therefore, been to frame the Bill in such a manner as may lead to a union between the two parts of Ireland. It is quite obvious that we cannot impose union against the will of one part or the other. Union must be a free and voluntary thing. In the very nature of things, division must give rise to many inconveniences, and ordinary men of commonsense will be anxious to remove them. Wise and prudent administration and legislation on the part of these Parliaments and the new Government will, we hope, remove and break down the distrust that may be felt in the one part for the capacity and fairness of the other. Relying upon these considerations, we propose to establish a Council of the whole of Ireland, as a link between the two Parliaments and as a bridge to bring together men of each Parliament, to enable them to discuss face to face matters of common national interest to the whole country. Irishmen of opposing views have before now, with undoubted success, sunk their differences and settled their controversies in circumstances such as these, and we are justified in hoping for similar results from these new proposals.
The Council is, in the first place, to be a purely advisory body, except in regard to two matters which I will deal with later. It may consider any questions which appear in any way to bear upon the welfare of southern and northern Ireland, and make suggestions thereon. Its first duty is to take into consideration what Irish services ought in the common interest to be administered by a general body having jurisdiction over the people of Ireland, and what transferred services ought to be transferred to the Council by identical Acts. As a matter of practical business it would, of course, be in the interests of administration and of economy to transfer many Irish services to the Council, such as the Department of Agriculture, the Local Government Board, the Fisheries, the Registrar-General, Census and Statistics, and others. The same applies to some of the reserved services, the postal service, the Post Office, the Savings Bank and stamps, and the Public Records Office. These are matters upon which suggestions can be made to the Parliaments by the Council, and if the
Parliaments choose to adopt the suggestions of the Council, they are empowered to transfer to the Council by identical Acts the powers that it is suggested the Council should have. The two matters upon which the Council have original jurisdiction are the following: (a) in order to secure uniform railway administration in Ireland, the Departmental powers as to railways now exercisable by any Government department will be exercisable by the Council, with power to legislate generally upon these matters. (b) under Clause 7 the Council are empowered to deal with and pass private Bills affecting the interests of southern and northern Ireland. This will prove a very valuable power enabling many useful private Bills to be introduced and passed expeditiously without having to incur the expense of introducing and passing these Bills at Westminster. To give any wider original powers—and we tried hard to give them—would be a violation of the fundamental principle laid down by the Prime Minister. It would mean placing the six counties and their administrative bodies under a legislative body or Parliament acting outside the six counties. This cannot be done without the assent of the six counties, and the Bill offers every facility and inducement for the six counties to come in and co-operate if they think fit. It will be open to each Parliament to delegate powers to the Council by identical Acts. The Council may thus become a real stepping stone on the way to the union. If its initial efforts are successful its powers may be increased by the two Parliaments until it becomes itself virtually a Parliament for all Ireland, and from that stage to complete union is but a very slight and very easy transition. The Council is to consist of a President, to be appointed by His Majesty, and forty members, twenty chosen by each House of Parliament from its own body. The appointment of members of the Council is to be the first business undertaken by the two Parliaments, so that the Council would come into operation at the earliest possible date, and commence its deliberations before either Government was finally committeed to separate administrative proposals. It is difficult to see how the constitutional powers of the Council could be improved. Every member will have to be elected by a constituency in some part of Ireland which he represents. Nobody nominated by any
executive authority could carry the same power or the same weight. The Bill further expressly provides that the Parliaments may themselves by identical Acts alter the constitution of the Council, and may, if they think fit, provide for its members being elected by the constituencies direct. The Government are prepared to listen sympathetically to any suggestions for improvement of this body upon the existence of which so much depends, because in the judgment of the Government while superficially it may appear to have very little power it is a medium which may become a great mediator and a great unifier in Ireland.
It may be convenient if I attempt now to point out the differences between this Bill and the Act of 1914 with respect to the powers transferred to the Irish Parliament. Let me take the excepted matters first. The matters in respect of which the Irish Parliament in the Act of 1914 and the two Parliaments under this Bill have no power to make laws are practically identical; the crown, the succession, and so on, except that under the Bill submarine cables, wireless telegraphy, aerial navigation are expressly mentioned, whereas under the Act of 1914 the Irish Parliament would have little or no jurisdiction, as the matters in question, for the most part, would come within exception as to matters not exclusively relating to Ireland. Again, under the Bill the postal service is a reserved matter until, and only until provision is made by the two Parliaments for a joint postal service. Under the Act of 1914 postal communication between one part of Ireland and another, and any other postal services completely executed in Ireland was to be transferred automatically. Let me take the reserved matters. Land purchase. Both under the Act of 1914 and under this Bill, land purchase will be reserved indefinitely, but the Bill excepts from the reservation the conclusion and recovery of purchase annuities and all the powers as to land purchase vested in the Congested Districts Board, other than the power of requiring advances made to them. Let me come to the police. Both the Act of 1914 and this Bill reserves the Royal Irish Constabulary, the Act of 1914 for six years and this Bill for three years, or until Irish union, whichever is the sooner. On
the other hand, the present Bill reserves the Dublin Metropolitan Police and the appointment, remuneration and removal of resident magistrates for the same period as the Royal Irish Constabulary, whereas under the Act of 1914 the Dublin Metropolitan Police was transferred automatically. The Imperial Government are determined to safeguard the rights of the police, the resident magistrates and ail the loyal servants of the Crown. The Bill also provides for the constitution of a body, on which the Irish Governments are represented, for the administration of the police force during the period of reservation. There was no such provision in the Act of 1914. Then as to savings banks. Both the Act of 1914 and this Bill reserve the savings banks, the Act of 1914 for a maximum period of ten years, and this Bill until provision is made for the joint administration of the services. Health insurance, friendly societies, unemployment, labour exchanges—these matters are reserved by the Act of 1914, but not by this Bill. Under the Act of 1914 the Irish Parliaments would obtain a transfer of these services on passing a resolution to that effect, but in the ease of friendly societies, not before the expiration of ten years. The Public Record Office is reserved by this Bill, but not under the Act of 1914. Under the Bill it is only reserved until provision is made for joint administration.
Now as to taxation. Under the Act of 1914 the imposition, levying and collection of all Imperial taxes remained with the Imperial Parliament and Government of the United Kingdom, the Irish Parliaments being given power over a certain number of taxes. The levying and collection of all taxes, whether Imperial or Irish, under the Act remained vested in the authorities of the United Kingdom. Under the Bill, on the other hand, the power of imposing, levying and collecting Excise Duties and Customs Duties on articles manufactured and produced, Income Tax, Super-tax, and Excess Profit Duty, is reserved to the United Kingdom, but the Irish Parliaments are given power to vary the rates of Income Tax upwards or downwards. The imposition, levying and collection of all other taxes are transferred to the Irish authorities, who will therefore have full control over death duties, stamp duties and entertainment duties, excise licence duties (with certain exceptions), and independent taxes
not being substantially the same in character as any of those duties or taxes, and at the date of Irish union there will be extended financial powers. Provision is then made for the consideration of the transfer to the Irish Parliament and Government of full powers as regards Customs and Excise, and the method by which payment of the Irish contribution to Imperial expenditure can best be secured. Somewhat similar provision was introduced into the Act of 1914, in the event of the Irish accounts of revenue and expenditure balancing each other during three consecutive years. Subject to the foregoing resolutions, Ireland's fiscal autonomy is complete, and as the White Paper shows, even where taxes are reserved, Ireland is credited with the proceeds of taxes paid by the Irish. That is to say, though the Imperial Parliament can impose taxes on the Irish, it cannot tax them for the benefit of Great Britain, nor is that the end of the matter. In addition to the whole disposable balance of the yield of Irish taxes, including the future growth of revenue, Ireland gets the tenant purchase annuities which at present amount to £3,500,000.
I said a few moments ago I would say a few words about land purchase, which from the point of view of the great majority of Irish people, is one of the great outstanding questions. Under this Bill the general question of land purchase is reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament and Government. It has always been recognised that no proposal for an Irish settlement can be regarded as complete unless some provision is made for the settlement of the land question. In 1886, Mr. Gladstone coupled with the Home Rule Bill a comprehensive scheme of land purchase. He laid down the proposition that it was an obligation of honour and of policy that Great Britain should undertake the settlement of this question, and in the Bill of 1893, in the Act of 1914, land purchase was reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament and Government on that same principle. During the discussion on the 1914 Act, my predecessor, Mr. Birrell, said the following to the House:—
What the Prime Minister is most anxious to have said to this House is, that this Committee and everybody must cleary understand that it follows as a corollary from the reservation of this most vital subject, that this Government, at all events, absolutely recognises its full and complete
responsibility, quite apart from the future fate or fortune of the Bill now in Committee. Whatever may happen to that, whatever can happen to that, and quite apart from that, the Government take upon themselves to make such alterations as can be made, to facilitate and accelerate land purchase.
And again,
I would undertake to say that, in my judgment and for the moment, and only for the moment, the completion of land purchase is more important than Home Rule itself.
The land question was originally a question of rent and relations between landlords and tenants, and throughout the greater portion of Ireland this question has been solved through the beneficent operations of the Land Purchase Acts, and principally through the great Act of my predecessor, George Wyndham, to whose memory I am glad to pay this tribute—the Act of 1903. The result has been to transfer the land to the tenants and other occupiers and to convert them into fee simple proprietors. Land purchase is now at a standstill, owing to the fact that sales, instead of being cash transactions, as they were under the Wyndham Act, have to be carried out on the basis of a 3 per cent. land stock issued at its par value. That is to say, a vendor, instead of receiving £1000 purchase money in cash, would receive £1000 3 per cent. stock, which at the present market rate would be worth only £497 10s. No landlord can afford to sell on these terms, and a new scheme of land purchase is therefore essential, which will enable the unsold land to be brought within the Land Purchase Acts.
It is a matter of extreme difficulty to frame a scheme which would be fair and acceptable to both landlord and tenant, but I am glad to be able to think that among the many noteworthy achievements of the Irish Convention, one of their best achievements was the formulation of a scheme for compulsory land purchase. The Sub-Committee of the Convention which dealt with that subject was composed of distinguished Irishmen belonging to all shades of opinion and representing various Irish interests. It included Lord MacDonnell, Mr. Barrie, Mr. Clancy, Lord Oranmore and Browne, the Bishop of Boss, Mr. Knight and Mr. Stewart. This Committee's Report was adopted unanimously by the whole Convention. The scheme which they put for ward would undoubtedly remove the impasse and provide for a speedy completion of land purchase on
terms equitable and fair between landlord and tenant. The Government, recognising as it does that it is under an obligation to introduce a land purchase scheme, has decided to adopt this scheme of the Convention as its basis, and will introduce a purchase Bill upon the lines of that scheme immediately.
In these circumstances I might be allowed to say just a few words about this scheme, as it is germane to the subject, and indeed it is part of the subject which we are now discussing. Take, first, the landlords' position. The Convention felt that it would be impossible to revert to payment of the purchase money in cash, as it would involve too great a loss to the State. On the other hand, the landlord could not be asked to accept 3 per cent. stock at par. They have proposed, therefore, that payment should be made in a new stock bearing dividends at such a rate that the market price of the stock might be expected to stand a little below par, and the vendors should be required to take this stock at its face value in payment of the purchase money. As regards the tenant, the purchase money should be fixed at such a sum that the purchase annuity payable by him in liquidation thereof, and taking the place of the rent which he pays at present, would represent the same average reduction as compared with the rent which other tenants in the county had obtained by purchasing under the Wyndham Act. The bonus would be adjusted on a graduated scale, so as to secure that where the number of years represented by the purchase money is small the bonus might be proportionately large. The scheme is a comprehensive one and provides not only for what I have said, but for the automatic vesting of all unsold land outside the nine congested districts in the Land Commission, and all untenanted land in the nine congested districts in the Congested Districts Board.
A few words about the finance. I hope that the House will bear with me as these matters are rather complicated. The present financial relations between Great Britain and Ireland are entirely different from those of 1912, and they confront us with a problem which is in many ways much more difficult. In 1912, expenditure upon Ireland exceeded revenue by something like £1,500,000, and therefore the
financial scheme of the 1914 Act was based on the assumption that Ireland could not pay her way and must receive from the Imperial Exchequer an annual subsidy equivalent to the expenditure, together with a moderate margin, varying I think from £500,000 to £200,000, to provide for the additional cost of the new-government. In these circumstances there could of course be no question of Ireland contributing to Imperial expenditure. It is true the Act did contemplate that at some future date the Irish accounts of revenue and expenditure might possibly balance, and it provided that if and when that contingency occurred and continued for a certain number of years to occur, then Parliament might re-open the question of financial relations with a view to securing a proper contribution from Ireland to Imperial expenditure, and extending Irish taxing powers.
What seemed a remote contingency in 1914 has actually occurred, and at the present time the revenue from Ireland not only meets the expenditure on Ireland but leaves a very considerable surplus available as an Irish contribution to Imperial expenditure. We are therefore faced with two new problems which did not arise in 1912 and could then be conveniently postponed for future consideration at some distant and problematical date. The first question is that of the Irish Imperial contribution. We propose in the Bill that normally the Irish contribution is to be based on the relative taxable capacities of Ireland and the United Kingdom, and this we believe to be fair and just, notwithstanding the fact that the proportion fixed on this basis may seem minute compared with the proportion contributed by England and Scotland. The total amount would be £600,000,000 as the Imperial charge borne by Great Britain. The Imperial charge borne by Ireland under this Act would be only £18,000,000. In other words, for every £l4 13s. 8d. per head of the population of Great Britain, it would be only £4 2s. per head in Ireland. We propose that the actual proportion shall be normally fixed by a joint Exchequer Board consisting of two members appointed by the Imperial Treasury, one member appointed by the Treasury of Southern Ireland, one by the Treasury of Northern Ireland, and a Chairman appointed by His Majesty.
The task of ascertaining the revenue actually contributed by each part of the United Kingdom, of determining the taxable capacity of Ireland and of the United Kingdom and fixing Ireland's contribution accordingly, is a very formidable one and would necessarily take a very considerable time to complete. If we were to initiate such an inquiry now, no full or satisfactory result could be obtained for probably one or two years. If, therefore, we are to pass this Home Rule Bill at the present time as an urgent measure, it is necessary to fix as well as we can, from the information at our disposal, a sum for the Irish contribution in the interim, pending the determination of a sum according to Ireland's taxable capacity as determined by the Joint Exchequer Board. This we have done in the Bill from the facts at our disposal. We have fixed Ireland's contribution as £18,000,000 for the first two financial years after the passing of the Act, and thenceforward the amount will be fixed at quinquennial periods by the Joint Exchequer Board. This sum has been fixed by reference to the sum which Ireland is in fact contributing at the present moment, as is explained very ably and in detail in a White Paper. It may be asked, why should Ireland pay any Imperial contribution? In the judgment of the Government an Imperial contribution is a necessary consequence of Ireland's remaining within the Empire. A provision for an Imperial contribution was made, I think, in the Bills of 1886 and 1893. No country can expect to have all the expenses of Army, Navy, Debt, and Foreign Relations found for it by another set of taxpayers. Given that such a contribution is to be made, the transitional sum of £18,000,000 has been arrived at on a basis very favourable to Ireland, allowing her an ample margin for growth of expenditure in the immediate future.
The second question is the granting of further fiscal powers to Ireland, and here we are met, as we were not met in 1914 or in any of the previous Bills, by the fundamental condition which involves two Parliaments and two Governments in Ireland. This condition precludes the concession of such fiscal autonomy as might have been granted to a United Ireland. A grant of Customs duties, necessitating a Customs barrier between Southern and Northern Ireland, would be impracticable, a disuniting influence and
possibly nugatory, and, in my judgment, would very likely set up an almost insurmountable obstacle to future union. Excise duties on articles manufactured or produced are really inseparable from Customs duties. Subject to this and certain limiting conditions we have given, as I said, to the Irish Parliaments the maximum of fiscal independence.
I will deal now with the question of the judicature. It is proposed to establish two parliaments, each with sovereign authority in its own territory, and the Government feel that if these parliaments are to be established it was desirable, indeed it was necessary, that they should have the signs and symbols of their authority, namely, the Courts of Law. It is proposed to establish a Supreme Court of Judicature of Southern Ireland and a Supreme Court of Judicature of Northern Ireland, exercising in their respective areas the jurisdiction now exercised over the whole of Ireland by the present Supreme Court, which would cease to exist. Each of the new Supreme Courts is, like the present Supreme Court, to be divided into a High Court and a Court of Appeal. The Southern High Court is to consist of the Lord Chief Justice of Southern Ireland as President, and six other judges; and the Northern High Court is to consist of the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland as President and two other judges. The Judicial Commissioner of the Land Commission is to be an additional judge of both High Courts for the purpose of his land purchase jurisdiction. As the jurisdiction of the Land Commission is not to be divided, the Judicial Commissioner, who is at present a judge of the existing High Court, must be made a judge of each of the new High Courts in order to retain his jurisdiction throughout Ireland. The Court of Appeal in Southern Ireland and the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland are each to consist of the Lord Chief Justices and two Lords Justices of Appeal, with power to call in additional judges from their respective High Courts.
It is also proposed to establish a High Court of Appeal for the whole of Ireland, to which appeals will lie from any decision of the Court of Appeal of Southern or Northern Ireland. The High Court of Appeal is to consist of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland as President and the Chief Justice for each of the new Supreme
Courts with power to the Lord Chancellor to call ill two additional judges, one from each of the new Supreme Courts. The High Court of Appeal will thus exercise jurisdiction throughout Ireland, and will form an important link between the two new Supreme Courts, securing uniformity in the interpretation of the Law and the application of legal principles.

Lord ROBERT CECIL: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us who appoints the Lord Chancellor?

Mr. MACPHERSON: He will be appointed by His Majesty; it will be an Imperial Office. It is proposed that the Lord Chancellor shall cease to be a political officer and be given judicial tenure. This change was recommended by the Convention. It necessitates the transfer of his executive functions, including the custodianship of the Great Seal, to the Lord Lieutenant. The Master of the Rolls is ex officio custodian of Public Records in Ireland, and head of the Public Record Office. Seeing that the Public Record Office is to be a reserve service and will not be divided between Southern and Northern Ireland, and that the Master of the Rolls will be attached to one or other of the new local Supreme Courts, it is necessary to transfer his functions with respect to Public Records to the Lord Lieutenant. The existing judges of the present Supreme Court are to be transferred automatically to corresponding positions in the Supreme Court of Southern Ireland on the appointed day, but each judge is given an option of being transferred with the approval of the Lord Chancellor, to the Northern Supreme Court instead of the Southern Supreme Court, and a further option of retiring on pension before the appointed day, subject to His Majesty's approval, if he does not wish to be transferred to either of the new Supreme Courts. The present members of the Irish Bar are to have right of audience in both the new Supreme Courts, and the present Solicitors of the existing Supreme Court are to become Solicitors of the new Supreme Courts and the new High Court of Appeal. The new Supreme Court and the new High Court of Appeal, with the Court offices and departments, are to be reserved matters. This reservation and
the whole of the foregoing provisions for separate Supreme Courts and a High Court of Appeal are temporary arrangements only pending the union of Southern and Northern Ireland. The establishment of the Supreme Court on this basis and a common High Court of Appeal can be supported generally on the analogy of Canada, where there are separate Superior and District Courts for the provinces and a Dominion Court of Appeal.
Let me now say a few words on representation in the united Kingdom Parliament and in the local Parliaments. Under the Home Rule Bill of 1886 Ireland was not to be represented in the United Kingdom Parliament. The Bill of 1893 as introduced provided for the representation of Ireland in the United Kingdom Parliament by 80 members instead of 103, and contained an in-and-out provision which prevented Irish Members taking part in any proceedings which did not affect Ireland directly. This latter provision was struck out in Committee, and the Bill as it left the House of Commons gave Ireland 80 representatives with unrestricted rights. In the Act of 1914 Ireland was given 42 Members in the United Kingdom Parliament. On the population basis the number would properly have been 64, but the number 42 was selected, not on any logical principle, but as a sort of adjustment to meet circumstances that might arise in future, including a scheme of devolution. As the Irish representation was so much reduced at that time it was not proposed to give any representation to an Irish University in the United Kingdom Parliament.
The present Bill follows the Act of 1914 in assigning to Ireland 42 Members, who will be elected by the existing Parliamentary counties, boroughs, or divisions, or groups of these. A comparison between Part II of the First Schedule to the Act of 1914 and the Second Schedule to the Bill will show that one or two changes have been made in the present Bill. These are due to the following two causes. First of all, it is impossible in the present Bill to group any county in Northern Ireland with a county in Southern Ireland for the purposes of representation. For instance, in the Act of 1914 Donegal and Fermanagh and Monaghan and Tyrone were grouped together, but in the present Bill it is
necessary to group Fermanagh with Tyrone to form a single constituency in Northern Ireland and to leave Donegal and Caven as two separate constituencies in Southern Ireland. By the Redistribution of Seats (Ireland) Act, 1918, the boroughs of Newry, Kilkenny, and Galway lost their separate representation, and were merged in the Parliamentary counties of Down and Armagh, Kilkenny and Galway, respectively, and accordingly they are not dealt with separately in the present Bill. By the same Act the County of Waterford became a single constituency and the divisions of East Waterford and West Waterford were abolished. This has necessitated a regrouping of the constituencies of which the abolished divisions form part under the Act of 1914. Further, the three Members assigned to the Borough of Dublin have been distributed in the Bill amongst three groups of existing Parliamentary divisions of the borough, instead of being assigned to the borough as a whole, as in the Act of 1914, and the four Members assigned to Belfast have been distributed amongst four groups of existing divisions in the same manner. This re-grouping is necessary in order to fit in with the scheme of representation in the local parliaments. All the constituencies thus formed for the election of Members of the United Kingdom Parliament are single-member constituencies, with the exception of seven which return two members each.

Major O'NEILL: Under what system, in the case of constituencies returning two Members to this Parliament, are those Members to be allocated?

Captain REDMOND: On what ground does the right hon. Gentleman embody the boroughs of Derry and Limerick and Waterford in the county constituencies?

5.0 P.M.

Mr. MACPHERSON: The basis is population. We could not do it otherwise. Under the Act of 1914 the Irish House of Commons was to consist of 164 Members of whom two were to be returned by Dublin University. The remainder were to be elected by the existing County and Borough Constituencies, and in any constituency returning three or more Members the elections; were to be on the proportional representation system. This applied to nine constituencies only, and
all the others were one or two-member constituencies. In the present Bill it is proposed to apply the principle of proportional representation to all elections to the Irish Parliaments, and as it is necessary for that purpose to have large constituencies the same constituencies have been taken for the Irish Parliaments as for the United Kingdom, a larger number of Members for the Irish Parliaments being assigned to each on the general principle that four Members are to be returned to the Irish Parliaments for every one Member returned to the United Kingdom Parliament. Thus the largest number of Members to be returned by one constituency will be eight and the smallest number three. Dublin University and the National University will each return four Members to the Southern Ireland Parliament and the University of Belfast will return four Members to the Northern Ireland Parliament. The total number of Members of the Southern Ireland Parliament will be 128 and of the Northern Ireland Parliament will be 52, or in all 180. There remain two or three smaller points about which I must say a word. The Government have made effective provision for safeguarding existing Irish Officers, and the provisions for this purpose are based on those of the Act of 1914.

Major O'NEILL: The right hon. Gentleman did not answer my question which was, in the case of constituencies returning two Members to this House under what system were those Members to be elected, as proportional representation only applies to the Irish Parliaments?

Mr. MACPHERSON: Those are not to be elected under proportional representation but in the ordinary way. The law is in no way altered. We are increasing the transitional period during which an existing officer may voluntarily retire on pension from five to seven years. In cases of compulsory or permissive retirement the pension to be awarded may range from a certain minimum basis up to a maximum of two-thirds of his salary, and we are introducing representation from the existing Irish officers on the Civil Service Committee to be set up under the Act. These additional safeguards are being inserted to meet representations which have been made to the Government by the general body of Irish officers themselves. During the discussions on the 1914 Act there was a good
deal of doubt as to what was meant by the appointed day. The Act is to come into operation generally on an appointed day, this day being fixed with reference to the month in which the Act is passed. The day expressly contemplated by the Act is the first Tuesday in the eighth month after the month in which the Act is passed. If it is found necessary in any way to anticipate or postpone this day, this can be done by Order in Council, subject, however, to this limitation—that the appointed day cannot be fixed earlier than one month and not later than fifteen months after the passing of the Act. Different days may be appointed for different purposes and for different provisions of the Act. There is, however, one dominant provision, namely, that the Parliaments of Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland are to be summoned by the Lord Lieutenant to meet not later than four four months after the Tuesday expressely mentioned in the Act, that is to say within twelve months after the Act is passed, and the appointed day for holding elections for the two Parliaments must be fixed so as to enable the Parliaments to meet within that time.
Finally I come to our proposal with regard to the Irish Executive. The Office of Lord Lieutenant will continue to exist but there shall be no longer any religious disability attaching to it. It will be open to all subjects of the Crown irrespective of creed. We have fixed the term of office for six years without prejudice, of course, to the power of His Majesty to revoke appointments, and with the intent, to use the words of the Clause, that the continuance in office of the Lord Lieutenant shall not be affected by any change of Ministry. There is no provision in this Bill, nor was there in any of the others or in the existing Act, for the continuance of the historic, but dubiously delectable, office of Chief Secretary. These words of mine, may, therefore, very well be the "Lay of the Last Minstrel."

Mr. DEVLIN: "The Last Rose of Summer."

Mr. MACPHERSON: And I would end them with an appeal. I ask the House of Commons, with every confidence, to give this Bill a Second Reading, and to carry it through. Much depends on it. I
would beg that it be considered on its merits, without the spirit or rancour of party. The situation is too grave for that. Fortunately, balanced and dependable men in Ireland, and wise men of good-will in all parties in this country, realise that gravity; and sinking in the interests of world and Imperial peace, and of the internal happiness and contentment of our country, their long-cherished antagonisms, are determined to support this measure, which alone holds the field, which alone has any chance of success, and which alone, by facing hard realities and providing for their gradual abatement and ultimate obliteration, can secure what we all desire, a united Ireland within the Empire, who shall flourish in prosperity and peace as the mistress of her own destiny.

Mr. CLYNES: I beg to move to leave out the word "now", and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
I am sure the House desires to express its indebtedness to the right hon. Gentleman for the lucidity, and unusual speed for such an occasion, with which he has explained the provisions of this rather lengthy and complicated measure. My name is associated with a Motion on the Paper asking the House to give a Second Heading to this Bill on this day six months. In moving that Motion I am conscious that other men who have discharged a similar office in previous years have done so because they were opposed to self-government as it has long been demanded in Ireland. I am not opposed to self-government. I firmly believe in the justice and wisdom of extending the fullest possible measure of self-government to that country, and I am here to move this Motion because I am convinced, and those for whom I speak, that this Bill, if forced into law, will fail completely in this object. I doubt whether this Bill either now or in the immediate few days or weeks during which it may be discussed in this House, will excite in Ireland any more interest or concern than the suppression of one of the ordinary political meetings very frequently suppressed in that country. We are discussing this matter at a most inauspicious hour, and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman in his appeal that we should endeavour to set aside all considerations of party rancour and endeavour to treat this measure on its
merits as expressed in this Bill. We are discussing it at a time when most abominable outrages are being committed in Ireland, but they are being committed, unhappily, when the vast majority of the people of that country look upon their present form of Government as the most abominable form of government that has ever ruled in Ireland. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]
Ireland never was more prosperous. Measured by any standard of material advantage, Ireland, I suppose, was never doing better than she is at this moment, but that is not to say that there is not a great deal of the very worst type of poverty and privation and suffering, but if Ireland were to be a thousand times better off than she is now materially that material prosperity would not dispose of the national and of the patriotic claim. We ought, therefore, not to deceive ourselves with the thought that any such measure imposed on Ireland and forced by this superior Parliament will allay that patriotic demand or settle this century-old claim. Two Parliaments are no substitute for the one Parliament which Ireland has so long claimed. I marvelled that that part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech covered no more space of time than one minute, that part which dealt with this principal feature of this extraordinary proposal, the feature of the two Parliaments. The position of Ireland not merely in relation to this country but viewed in its relations to the world at large is provoking amazement in many other countries and particularly in those lands for whose freedom and self-determination this country has expended so much in recent years. We cannot consider the Irish situation without specially noting the ill effects of that position upon the relationship between America and this country. Into that I am not going now, but I do mention it as one of the most serious of the evil by-products which the present system of governing Ireland has produced. The respect for law in any country must be sought only and expected in so far as that law rests upon the consent of the vast majority of the people in that country Respect for the law in any degree whatever in Ireland was destroyed by the events of 1913–14 more than by any other recent events of modern times. Since that time we have drifted in Ireland into a form of government by
imprisonment, by deportation, by arrests, by incarceration without trial until recently we have found that the surest way to an Irish prison was to get elected in Ireland by the Irish people for any office in Ireland. But that method of government has so completely failed that that policy is reflected in the tone and terms of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman; a good man, valiantly struggling with adversity, who has shown in his speech this afternoon how completely the system of trying to rule Ireland by coercive measures has failed. In keeping with the usual terms of all Chief Secretaries, with few exceptions, he distinguished between those parts of the population which he described as loyal and those which are not, but the loyalty of Ireland as we speak of it must be determined by the view of the people in relation to their alien Government. You would have in the other parts of the Empire the same symptoms of so-called disloyalty if you had the same conditions of government. Ireland gave many of her best sons when the needs of the British Empire called for them during the Great War, and all Members in the House at the time must ever vividly recall the appeals made from these Benches by uniformed Irishmen who had chivalrously played their part in defence of the great cause of the Allies, and I take leave to bring before the notice of the House references in the petition which some two or three hundred Irish officers who had served in the War presented to His Majesty the King when that War was over. Indeed, the figures which I have seen on this point show that the percentage in relation to the total population of men of Irish blood who fought in the War was equivalent to that of Canada and Australia and not far short of that of Great Britain, and in this petition, expressing their natural desire as Irishmen for the freedom of their countrymen as they had been fighting for the freedom of this and other lands, these Irish officers said:
The Home Rule Bill, by virtue of the Royal Assent, became the formal sovereign legislative Act of the Three Estates of the Realm. Thus was a great pact of international appeasement ratified. Thereupon, and as the first fruits of her new rights and obligations, Ireland rallied to the cause of the British Empire of which she had become at least an enfranchised and self-respecting
national unit. By 'a free gift of a free people,' as the Prime Minister of England then described it, she sent an abundance of her sons, for whom we speak, to bear arms against the common foe.
They go on to speak of the defeat of the Central Powers and of the unhappy situation in which they found their country at the close of the War. Finally, they say:
That there has been a violent emotional upheaval in Ireland, with political reactions, is a result that could have been foretold with mathematical precision; and it is our knowledge of the widely organised efforts to brand Ireland with the stigma of these consequences, as well as of the true conditions at present existing in Ireland, which lead us to present this, our petition, to Your Majesty in so much detail.
I said that the Chief Secretary—and I think it is a very serious blemish in an otherwise exemplary speech—scarcely attempted any justification, and presented no argument in defence of the main principle of this Bill, namely, the imposition of two Parliaments upon Ireland, but to claim, as he did, that the leading feature of this Bill is the Council is to overlook the real facts, and present what is really a secondary matter as the matter of outstanding and primary importance. Incidentally, if the right hon. Gentleman argues, great good would accrue from bringing Irishmen of opposite political views into one Council, there commonly to discharge duties relating to their country, why not begin by putting them in one Parliament? Why drive them into two separate and probably opposing institutions and then at the same time provide that they shall do good by being brought together within one Council? The comment that I would like to offer on another feature of the right hon. Gentleman's speech is in regard to the points he made as to further land reforms laying behind the measure which he has explained this afternoon. This Government, like other Governments, will be deceived if it expects that provisions of this kind will be equal to mooting the demands of the country for the fullest measure of Home Rule, and incidentally the right hon. Gentleman may be reminded that all these measures of social improvement and of land reform in Ireland can be traced throughout the past generation to the exertions and to the exactions of hon. Gentlemen from Ireland
who came to this House for a period of more than 30 years, backed by a great Nationalist and constitutionalist electorate, to seek redress for their country, and in spite of the good results of their labours, that great constitutional party was finally sacrificed to the follies of the existing system of governing Ireland.
This House can pass this Bill. The Prime Minister has a sufficient majority for any purpose, and is able to get anything through the Lobbies of this building; but no one in the House, not even the Chief Secretary, would claim that anybody in Ireland who is anybody at all, with any influence or authority, or who is a representative person, can be found to accept this Bill, to welcome it, to say a good word for it, or to suggest that it would be a settlement of this thorny problem. The Bill is accepted by a few people, I grant, but it is approved by none. Many efforts have been made in different parts of Ireland to procure manifestations of support for the Bill, but I say that neither in press, nor in pulpit, nor in public meeting, nor in organisation of workpeople of any kind, can the Chief Secretary turn and look for anything like approval of the measure which is now before the House. What public body in Ireland has manifested its assent to, or its support of, this measure? Incidentally, is there any organisation of workers, in the north, or in the south, or in any part of the country, which has indicated its belief that a measure of this kind would either settle their demands or compose the differences which exist between the different sections of that country? Two Parliaments, in the judgment of those for whom I speak, would inevitably create rival and separate interests, delaying rather than hastening the period, which I think most hon. Members in this House desire, when there shall be one Parliament speaking for one united Ireland. Can the Prime Minister say that, throughout his long labours following the course of the War, he ever proposed to impose any similar provisions for self-determination as are contained in this Bill on any other people in any part of the world? Surely he has a right to think in terms of the conditions and the needs of people who are nearer the shores of this country than any other part of the world, and I doubt whether it can be shown that, in order to reconcile
internal differences within the borders of any country, he thought fit to compel the residents of that country to accept not one, but two, separate and rival parliaments.
Reference has been made by the Chief Secretary this afternoon to the declaration made, I think, somewhere about 1913 or 1914, and often repeated since, that Ulster must not be coerced. No one wishes to coerce Ulster, but why responsible Statesmen who are answerable for the enforcement of the law, and whose first business it is to maintain the dignity of Parliament, should go out of their way to announce beforehand that they are not going to enforce a law if it is carried is beyond my comprehension. There was the beginning, there was the start, in the official encouragement given to Ulster to resist a law which was distasteful to them. I do not think Ulster Members themselves would openly and officially claim that they, more than their countrymen, have a right to resist the law, have a right to be placed in a privileged position and not to be expected to conform to the law if it is the law.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, they would.]—This tender consideration for Ulster has gone far gravely to confuse these issues and to increase the difficulties of the men who have been at the head of our successive Governments, and this attempt now to reconcile Ulster probably will fail, as the other appeals to its observance of the law and to its loyalty to this Parliament have previously failed. I await with a great deal of expectation and interest the eager welcome that is to be extended to this measure from those who represent what is termed Ulster opinion. In their speeches I think we shall see other signs of the futility of trying to settle this question on the lines of the half measures or of the double courses which are presented within this Bill.
My colleagues for whom I am speaking wish me to say that we oppose this scheme of self-government, because it provides a form of partition founded on a religious basis and recognises neither the historic unity of the province of Ulster nor of Ireland as a whole. It gives to Ulster complete control over the fortunes of the rest of Ireland by giving to the Ulster Parliament the right to veto on the assumption of any powers by the Central Irish Council. It establishes, in statutes and in assemblies, Ulster domination by giving the excluded area a repre-
sentation on the Irish Council equal to that accorded to the rest of Ireland. The scheme reserves to the Imperial Parliament control over the financial affairs of Ireland by retaining the imposition and collection of the three great taxes, namely, Income Tax, and the duties of Customs and Excise. The control of police is reserved to the Imperial Parliament for a period of three years, and of the judiciary until an agreement is reached between the two Irish Parliaments. For these reasons, we believe that the Bill would not remove, but deepen, the friction which has long prevailed. Further conflicts would be aroused, and vested interests would be created which would be more difficult to remove in the future than it is difficult to remove them now. The Bill concedes to a minority of the country the selection of the form of Government which it denies to a majority.
If it be that there may be found in Ireland a voice to arise in favour of this measure, it will be the forced voice of some Ulster speaker who announces that he is quite willing to accept this measure and give it a trial, but the Bill does not even meet that point of view. Ulster is an expression which has misled a great many people. The Bill proposes to take some two-thirds of Ulster and separate it from the remaining one-third, and give to two-thirds a separate Parliament. The other part of Ulster must be within the Southern Parliament. You compel, therefore, representatives from the North to travel to Dublin and there participate in the general work of the Southern House of Commons. Upon what basis is this principle adopted? Is it geographical, religious, or political? No one of those points was touched by the Chief Secretary. And what is to be said of that minority of Catholics who exist in the six counties? Are you, on the assumption of this being a wise and just settlement, to place the minority of Catholics in the six Protestant counties in the keeping of their Protestant fellow-countrymen on conditions that would leave them in a state of permanent minority and helplessness so far as the work of the Northern Parliament was concerned? And if you turn to the Protestants in the South, what is their position? Are we to cancel all the arguments that have ever been used in this House, and in the
country at large, as to the pitiable position of the Southern Unionist and Protestant, who is to be left to the mercy of the Dublin Parliament, whose life and property would be in danger, and whose faith and the rights of worship would be undermined by the decrees of a Parliament in Dublin? What becomes of all those arguments? These are the arguments which, in the past, have justified the refusal of the one Parliament in Ireland, and, strangely enough, are now the arguments which justify the imposition of two Parliaments. Neither the Catholic minority in Ulster nor the Protestant minority in the southern parts of Ireland can feel any sense of security from this measure.
No doubt we shall be asked, "What would we do?" I deliberately remind the House of that, although I know that the question has often been put and answered in something like this form: "We are not in power. It is the business of an Opposition to oppose. It is the duty and responsibility of the Government to formulate satisfactory measures, and we are here to criticise them." I go beyond that. I think at such a time as this, especially in view of developments in Ireland, it is essential that all parties should make their attitude towards that country clear. These are hardly the days for ordinary criticism. We have an extraordinary Irish situation. There should be conceded to Ireland the maximum of national self-government compatible with the unity of the Empire and the safety of the United Kingdom in time of war; the fullest financial and economic liberty, subject to an annual contribution towards the cost of expenditure which is common to us all, and which, by the way, I think some of the more remote outposts of Empire have not fully met in past years. There should be adequate protection for the Ulster people from any sense of danger to their life, their property, or their faith. There should be the recognition of Ireland's rights to discuss and decide in one elective assembly her own constitution and her own financial arrangements. These conditions, with all the terms which have ever been made on the faith of a Home Rule demand, would literally amount to self-determination, limited only
by the requirements of Imperial unity and defence, and would ensure fulfilment even of the British pledges to Ulster.
Upon these lines we believe Irish unity can be secured. Irish unity cannot be secured by expecting the South to yield points which the North is not called upon to yield at all. There must be something of give and take between the two contending elements in Ireland if ever the rival claims of that country are to be satisfied. But this Bill we believe in practice would be the cause of even still deeper division, and would stamp the two sections with a claim of having certain rights based upon religious grounds alone. I think we are entitled, in view of developments, particularly in the North of Ireland, to ask what place has Labour opinion? Surely, if the world is to travel as speedily as most parts have travelled in the last few years, we cannot expect Labour in Ulster to stand where she was. Labour opinion is taking shape in Ulster, and, as the Leader of the Opposition said very distinctly only a few days ago, the questions to be settled in the future are economic, industrial, and social questions. Those divisions which have made men foolishly fight and wrangle in the past can be allayed, and we are not as likely, I think, to proceed to smash each other's heads in the future, for the love of God, as has been done in the past. The shipyard workers, the linen workers, and the agricultural workers in the North of Ireland are, I think, in the years immediately ahead of us likely to be more concerned about the condition of their houses, their general social and industrial conditions, and their standard of livelihood than about most of these things, important as they are, which have unfortunately divided them in the past.
The remedy, as we believe, for this Irish trouble is to cease governing Ireland by force, not next month or next year, or after this Bill is passed, but to cease governing Ireland by force now. It is really a wonder if the Prime Minister expects us and expects Ireland seriously to surrender our and her energies to a consideration of the question at a time when you have a condition of government in Ireland such as we would say any foreign country ought to be ashamed of if a similar condition of government were imposed by them. We must drop coercion.
Political prisoners should be released and we should reverse the whole system of Irish administration. I do not know how many Members of Parliament in Ireland are in gaol without trial. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, the sure way to get to an English prison is to get elected for an Irish constituency. You need not commit crime; you need not incite crime. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Hon. Members will have their opportunity to deal with these observations. As I was speaking as a Labour man, if I may mention it, I have particularly in mind the case of Mr. O'Brien, the respected head of the Irish trade union movement, brought over from Ireland without charge, without trial, and resting in an English prison. What would any hon. Member of this House think if it were possible for that to take place in his case? I am sure his constituency would be the first to offer some protest against illegalities and wrongs of that sort, and we are entitled to say that Labour men ought not to be subjected to these indignities if we ourselves have a right to resent them in the case of other men.
Labour would apply to Ireland the principle of self-determination, as I have described it, and as it is practised in the self-governing dominions. A constitution conferring self-government on Ireland should not be revised by the Irish people until after an agreed number of years, during which, under the broadest system of self-government, they would be able to return to a normal state of mind. It is no trifling to say that the mind of Ireland at this moment cannot possibly be in a normal state. When Ireland is free from the anger and bitterness which now exist—and she could be so free by reversing the existing system of governing Ireland by coercion—then would be the moment to offer, not merely just, but, I would even say, generous terms for self-determination and self-government such as she has long rightly claimed. Dominion self-government, with full protection for minorities, which all of us are ready to concede, would mean unity both in substance and in sentiment as against the animosities and hostilities which this proposal for partition will certainly engender. But if this line is not acceptable to the Government, there is an alternative which is well worth their consideration, in spite of the failure of the
attempt to get Irishmen themselves to frame a constitution—I mean the failure which resulted from the sittings a year or two ago of the Irish Convention. That failure, by the way, was almost anticipated, if not evoked, by the statement that, unless there was a measure of agreement, if not unanimity, nothing could result from the deliberations of that body. It is a pity that the body itself was constituted as it was, and the greater pity still that its deliberations were anticipated by the statement I have just made. An alternative to the Bill of this Government might well have been sought by assembling an Irish constituent assembly representing the whole Irish people and elected upon some basis of Proportional Representation. The assembly could be charged with the task of drafting the new constitution within the terms of the principle of self-determination, and it could make full provision for the protection of minorities, for questions of defence and for foreign relations being reserved to the imperial Parliament.

Mr BOTTOMLEY: Would the Sinn Feiners attend that assembly?

Mr. CLYNES: I think the answer to that question is, Is it likely that the Sinn Feiners would convene or have anything to do with this half-hearted Parliament set up under this particular Bill? I am suggesting to the House—and I believe it is as near a certainty as it can be—that the great body of Irish opinion—leaving out what might be termed, in this instance, the negligible quantity of irreconcilable extremists who may accept nothing—would respond to the course I have suggested. Given a reversal of coercion, given a complete change in the attitude of force towards Ireland and the convening of a properly-elected body of this kind, I believe the great mass of Nationalist and Unionist opinion would respond to such an approach. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the Sinn Feiners?"] I have already answered the question put to me as to the attitude of the Sinn Feiners in Ireland.

Mr. SEDDON: Has the right hon. Gentleman got the figures for the last municipal elections in Ireland?

Mr. CLYNES: If I had those figures I should have to consider them in relation
to what is the conduct of the British Government in Ireland now. Hon. Members evidently have not caught what was in my mind. If we want a change in the attitude of Ireland we must begin by changing our own. It is only by a reversal of the position of our Government in relation to the mass of the people—I do not, of course, mean in relation to those who commit crime, of those who are violating the normal law. I do not mean that, but I say if we want the mass of the people to respond to our friendly approaches for setting up a system of Home Rule in Ireland we must begin by altering our own attitude towards them.
Finally, I say that the growth of labour opinion in Ireland, which clearly has been neglected by those who have framed this Bill, makes for a more forcible assertion of the right of the Irish people to have one Parliament. Opinion changes in Ireland, in the North of Ireland as well as in the South, as well as in this country. The right hon. Gentleman, the Prime Minister, who has fought so many fights in the cause of religious freedom, ought never to have touched a measure of this kind, which surely will deepen those differences and religious animosities which he, no doubt, would himself desire to allay. We have one right and only one as the Imperial Parliament to withhold any longer the demand of the vast majority of the Irish people, and that right is might. It is the only thing which gives any claim whatever to refuse what has been asked. However good your government may be it never can be a substitute for a government of the people of Ireland by themselves. The best of government is not a substitute for self-government. We who fought against might when it was exhibited by the Central Empires, and expended so much blood and treasure—including Irish blood and treasure—in that fight against might, ought not to rest our claim in reference to Irish demands upon what is a wrong, namely, the use of the power of might by a great nation against a smaller one. Let us view this matter from a higher level. After the experience and history of 100 years let us reach the conclusion that there can be no settlement of the Irish question unless it unites opinion and contending parties in Ireland. You cannot, by officially dividing and
separating them, ever hope to attain anything like the unity which all of us desire.

Lord R. CECIL: The House always listens to my right hon. Friend who has just spoken with the greatest possible interest, and, I believe, with a genuine desire to agree with him if it can. He is so persuasive and so moderate that everyone feels, against his better judgment, perhaps, that there must be really a good deal to be said for his point of view. As to his general conclusion, I do not know that I should find myself so very much out of sympathy with him. I agree with him that this is a very bad Bill. I agree with him that no final settlement in Ireland is possible except by agreement. I agree that force is in itself no remedy. When, however, he asks, as I understand him to ask, for a sudden and immediate removal of what he calls coercive measures, I must point out to him that if we were to cease governing by force, may we not say, as the French proverb has it, "Let the murderers begin." In face of the terrible news which has been coming through from Ireland, I do not believe any responsible Government, even made up of the party to which the right hon. Gentleman belongs, would hesitate to say that the enforcement of the law is the first duty of any government in Ireland at the present day.

Mr. IRVING: There is no law in Ireland to-day. You have abrogated it.

Lord R. CECIL: I do not think that is a very illuminating observation. Of course, there is law. Substantially there is no difference to England in the law as applied to the ordinary relations of life. The same body of common law exists in Ireland as in England. The difficulty is that it is not enforced in Ireland. However, I shall come back to that part of the topic in a moment. Nor do I agree with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Clynes) in his attacks or depreciation of Ulster. Really, I am not going to argue it now, but it is really to me astounding that anyone who speaks for the principle of self-government should fail to see that every form and section of opinion has an equal claim to self-government, whether it is large or small. When we are taxed with using our might to oppress a small
nation in Ireland, surely it is just as bad to use our might to oppress a small section of that nation.
I propose, however, to approach this subject from a rather different point of view. This is called a Bill for the better government of Ireland. That is the real question. Is the Bill going to be for the better government of Ireland? My right hon. Friend who initiated the Debate did not—if he will forgive me for saying so—argue the case for the Bill at any length. It was his business to expound the provisions of the Bill. The only thing he said was that this was a Bill to settle once and for all the age-long chapter of our differences with Ireland. I do not know what other hon. Members may think, but I think it would be quite safe to say that whatever else this Bill will do it will not settle the Irish question. Everyone agrees—I agree as strongly as anyone else—that the settlement of the Irish question is one of the greatest political objects of the present day. The real question is, will this Bill, or will it not, bring that settlement nearer? My right hon. Friend has pointed out to the House what, of course, is quite well known, that Irish opinion, speaking broadly, is solidly against this Bill as it stands. I know there is other opinion, which, if I recollect rightly, has gone so far as to say that it would not take the responsibility of rejecting the Bill, but I do not recollect any single phrase amounting to an approval of the Bill as it stands. I have studied the correspondence column of the "Times." Here a number of very interesting letters have appeared. Many of them are written more or less in support of the Bill. But when you come to examine them there is not one that does not demand drastic alterations in the Bill. Anyone who has followed them will find that if these alterations were granted they would convert the neutrality of my hon. Friends from Ulster into one of very definite hostility. Therefore you may say with some confidence that this Bill has not one single atom of Irish opinion behind it.
6.0 P.M.
I remember the Prime Minister, in his speech last Session, put forward as one of his great objects that of conciliating American opinion. I do not know at all what sources of information the Government may have, but I doubt very much whether he will advance materially towards the conciliation of American
opinion—if that be a proper object of our policy—unless you carry Irish opinion, or a very considerable section of Irish opinion, along with you. After all, I am not sure that our policy in dealing with a domestic subject should be governed very much by what is thought on the other side of the water.—[An HON. MEMBER: "It is not a domestic subject."]—I do not think I shall be suspected of any want of sympathy with the idea of drawing nearer the English-speaking peoples, but I am quite sure you will only achieve that friendly feeling if you achieve respect. I believe that you will get the respect of the people of the United States—I am not talking of the politicians, or those who govern the proceedings of that strange body, the Senate, but the great body of opinion in the United States—you will get the best chance of getting their approval, and their affection, if you do what is the right thing from the point of view of justice and good administration, and leave American opinion to follow and understand what your action is without considering that opinion too much. I therefore come to the main question: Is this Bill going to improve the government of Ireland or the British Constitution? [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] Well, now, as to the British Constitution. I am not going to deal with that at any length, but only in one or two observations. To my mind it is, and always has been, illogical to have any Bill which should concede anything like a large measure of self-government to Ireland, and yet allow 40 or 50—I do not care about the exact number!—Irish Members to deal here with purely English questions. Just now it may be a matter of very small importance. The overwhelming majority which the Prime Minister and the Government have at their backs make it of very little importance whether they are here or not. But in an ordinary time, when the two parties are evenly, or as nearly as possible evenly, balanced, it is utterly intolerable that on some purely English question—it may be a question of English education—that Irish Members should have the power to put in or turn out a British Government. That is all I desire to say about the British side, although I think that side is often neglected in these discussions. Now I come to the Irish side. What is the present condition of Ireland? It is simply
appalling. We have these terrible and spectacular crimes like the tram murder, when a respectable aged public servant was hauled out of a tramcar in broad daylight and shot in the street, and not one person has the courage to come forward and give evidence, because they are apparently afraid to run this terrible risk without police protection. These spectacular crimes are only symptoms of a wide-spread and terrible disease. I have had an opportunity of reading a number of the Judges' charges which have been given quite recently all over Ireland. I will read just a few phrases which I have picked out. Mr. Justice Moore says:
The black record has increased six times.
Mr. Justice O'Connor speaks of
Open contempt for the law.
Mr. Justice Ronan says:
People Sympathised with crime and the community is terrorised.
The Chief Justice speaks of
an orgy of crime.
Mr. Justice Gibson speaks of
Figures more formidable than for many years.
There is scarcely a judge who has charged a jury during the last three months in the south and west of Ireland who could not give testimony of a similar character. The thing is made all the worse by the fact that at many assises in other parts of the country the Judges have been presented with white gloves because nobody has been brought before them, although these crimes have been specially reported to them by the police. I think that is a shocking state of things. My right hon. Friend, the Chief Secretary for Ireland, in a speech delivered on the 4th of March, made this abundantly clear, and I hope every hon. Member who did not hear it will read that speech, if they want to know what the responsible Minister thinks about the state of Ireland. He said:
It is quite obvious that we are up against a tremendously dangerous situation in Ireland, and only this morning I received letters from Loyalists in the South and West of Ireland begging that steps be taken by the Government to get them out of a country so dangerous as that part has become to those who are endeavouring to abide within the law.
I do not think any more thorough condemnation of a part of the British Empire
has ever been uttered by a responsible Minister than that, and it is a terrible disgrace to the British name. Here we are in this House, accustomed, and rightly accustomed, to boast of British justice, and of the skill and success with which we have brought peace and order to the many lands which form part of the British Empire. We succeeded in dealing with the ancient enmities of Egypt, and the barbarism of Africa, and the problems raised by a few of our self-governing Possessions. In all those cases we have no serious difficulty in enforcing the pax Britannica wherever the British flag flies. When I was in Canada I remember being struck with the pride of the people there at the success with which law and order and justice was enforced. I remember one of them telling me how two cowboys came up from the Wild West for the purpose of "painting some town red," and my Canadian friend explained how the Canadians put an end to that disreputable desire; nor have we always failed in Ire land. In 1906, at the end of the Unionist administration, Ireland was, on the testimony of Mr. Birrell, more peaceful than it had been for six hundred years, and that was so. Not that it was prosperous, but political passions were dying away. Had that happy state of things gone on, and had it not been reversed for political reasons—

Mr. DEVLIN: Was it not the promise of Home Rule?—[An HON. MEMBER: "Not in 1906."]

Lord R. CECIL: No, Sir. My hon. Friend knows as well as I do that the entry of the Liberal Government into power was the signal for a recrudescence of crime in Ireland.

Mr. DEVLIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that after the Liberal Government had been in power for nearly ten years, on the historic night when Sir Edward Grey made a speech when Ireland was absolutely immune from crime of any sort or character, he said that Ireland was the one bright spot in this gloomy and dark situation?

Lord R. CECIL: I am the first to acknowledge the great services which the late Mr. Redmond rendered to the Empire, and I do not wish to diminish them, and I have not the slightest doubt that he spent his life for the good of his
country and the good of the Empire. It was the Unionist Administration which terminated in 1906 which had produced peace and order in Ireland, and this was achieved by the rigid and impartial enforcement of the law coupled with well-devised beneficent legislation. Therefore I say the first duty of the Government at the present time is to restore order, and I ask myself whether this Bill will help to do it. I do not think we can suggest for a moment, and I do not think we shall hoar anything of it from the Treasury Bench, that the Government are going to shuffle off their responsibility. We cannot get rid of our responsibility. We are bound to restore order in Ireland, which we hope will become a self-respecting nation Will this Bill help in that direction? This is an exceedingly complicated measure, and every line, I venture to suggest, shows the result of a conflict and a difference of opinion in the Cabinet. The result has apparently been to have three authorities. There is one overriding authority, and that is the Imperial Authority. As we learned this afternoon, that Authority appoints a Lord Chancellor, but I do not know whether or not it appoints through the Lord Chancellor, the judges.

Mr. MACPHERSON: It does.

Lord R. CECIL: Then it does appoint the judges, but what happens after that?

Mr. MACPHERSON: It is for a period of three years only.

Lord R. CECIL: Then you have the National Authority, which is the Council, and a great deal has been made of that by my right hon Friend. The Council is a very remarkable body. It consists of forty members, twenty chosen from one part of the country and twenty from another, but its main function seems to be that of a national debating society, and it is not to have any powers except private Bill powers and certain other powers. No one will have failed to perceive the great contrast there is between the elaborateness of the construction of this body and the functions which it has to perform. There are the two provincial Parliaments, each of which will have very large powers. Besides all this, there are two other authorities. There is the Exchequer Board, which is the great Authority over finance, and there is the
Police Committee, a very strong body, which for three years has the control of the police, and which consists of two Members nominated by the Secretary of State, one by each Parliament and a chairman nominated in such a way that I cannot make out whether it is an Imperial appointment or not. That Committee is for the next three years after the passing of the Bill to be the chief guarantee for the preservation of order in Ireland. I think the general provisions of this Bill justify one in the conclusion that it must seriously weaken the strength of the Executive.
Let me take two instances, the police and the magistrates. They are to be appointed under the Bill under sentence deferred for three years, at the end of which time they are to be transferred to the control of the respective Parliaments. Assume that the Southern Parliament consists mainly of Sinn Feiners, who are, in my judgment, as far as I read the evidence and according to the very distinct and definite statement of the Chief Secretary, directly responsible for the orgy of crime now existing in Ireland. I think the majority of the Southern Parliament will presumably be Sinn Feiners. Therefore, the police and magistrates are to be dependent for three years upon this body, subject to the control of this curious Police Committee. Can anyone suppose, and can my right hon. Friend really tell me, that that is going to make the administration of the law in Ireland easier? Let any one of them get up and have the courage to assort that that will really make it easier to detect crime and punish criminals. I cannot think that they really believe it.
Let me take the Customs That is a reserved service; that is to say, Customs are going to be collected by Imperial authority. There will have not only to be Imperial authorities at the ports, but coastguards all round the coast to prevent smuggling. How do you suppose these Imperial coastguards are going to carry out their duties under the jurisdiction of a Parliament elected by a Sinn Fein majority. I venture to say if this Bill passes, Ireland will be a paradise for smuggling. Every smuggler will say that never in his wildest moments has he conceived his occupation could be carried on under conditions so favourable to success. This is all
assuming that the Bill comes into force, and that the Parliament is elected and sits. Suppose that does not happen. Suppose one of two things; suppose a majority of the electors in the South and West of Ireland refuse to elect a Parliament. What is going to happen then? What is the policy of the Government to be? Are they going to revert to the present system of government? Are they going to carry on the present system, seriously discredited as it will be by the fact of this Bill being actually on the Statute Book and nominally in force, and with a Parliament existing in the other part of Ireland adding greatly to the difficulties of administration?
Or suppose another thing happens. Suppose they are elected and declare for an Irish Republic. What are you going to do then? Are you going to re-conquer Ireland? What is your policy to be? I venture to say that this Bill, to put it very mildly, must produce immensely increased difficulties for the Government of Ireland. I shall be told perhaps, "Yes, but consider the moral effect. You will have granted self-government to Ireland, and you will be entitled to rely on public opinion to support you." If you have public opinion behind you, you will have gone a long way towards solving this whole difficulty of the Irish question: indeed, nothing is more borne in upon my mind as I grow older, than the fact that it is public opinion which is the real guarantee of order and security in this country far more than any specific legislation. By what right do you suppose you are going to get public opinion behind you by reason of this Bill? Why should it rally to the support of a measure condemned by every single soul in the south and west of Ireland?

Mr. DEVLIN: And the north too.

Lord R. CECIL: That has not been proved. It is a question altogether of speculation. I asked a little time ago if the Government would give me a return of the Crimes Committee since the 1st January last. I regret very much that, owing to misunderstanding, that return has not yet been presented, and therefore I am not yet in a position to say authoritatively what is the full extent of crime which has taken place since the 1st January. But I have been furnished with certain figures drawn from the news-
papers. They only go up to the end of February this year. I find these facts, and I have every reason to believe they are correct, that taking the crime of murder for the whole of 1919, down to the declaration of the policy of this Bill by the speech of the Prime Minister outlining the Bill and laying it before the people of Ireland, there were in the whole of that year 14 murder crimes. In January and February this year there were 11, an enormous rate of increase, and in March the increase, very unfortunately, is much greater than that. Then I come to the woundings. These are serious crimes of course.

Mr. DEVLIN: Are you going to give the corresponding statistics for England?

Lord R. CECIL: No. I am trying to show that the announcement of this Bill, so far from producing a soothing effect, or rallying public opinion to the support of the law, has, as far as one can tell, had an exactly opposite effect, and, therefore, the enactment of this Bill will have no tendency to rally public opinion to the support of the law. The woundings during the whole of 1919, numbered 16, and in the two months at the beginning of 1920, the number was 18. Raids and outrages numbered 41 during 1919, and 48 in January and February this year, and if you add March the contrast is still more striking, as I have reason to believe. There were in all 71 serious crimes in the year 1919, while 77 are recorded for two months in 1920. I really do not understand how anyone can believe in the face of figures of that kind, and in face of the arguments I have laid before the House, that this is really going to be a Bill for the better Government of Ireland. Who are we asked to sacrifice? Really, it is scandalous. Remember we are asked to sacrifice 350,000 or thereabouts of the so-called loyalists in the South and West of Ireland. I know my right hon. Friend the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) says that if you remove the forces these men will be safe. I would like to ask what these men really think. I do not think that they will agree with the right hon. Gentleman for a moment. And these are the men who furnished by far the larger proportion of the recruits who fought for us in the War.

Captain REDMOND: Nonsense!

Mr. DEVLIN: I can assure the Noble Lord that the opposite is the case.

Lord R. CECIL: I do not think my hon. Friends opposite would be very happy under the Government proposed to be set up under this Bill.

Mr. DEVLIN: That is another thing.

Lord R. CECIL: Who else besides the loyalists will suffer? The police will be in danger. We are going to hand them over absolutely defenceless te this new Government. I cannot conceive that this House, oven on the Prime Minister's immense authority, will really accept such a proposal. To my mind this scheme has no chance. I can see no chance for it. It is not founded on any definite principle. It is a series of expedients just adapted to meet this or that difficulty as it arose during the discussion. I cannot think that this is the way in which the reputation and authority of the British Empire have been sustained. I shall be told that this is merely negative criticism. Yes, but we have to decide whether we will approve this Bill, and before hon. Members vote aye or no, they have to see whether it will do good or harm. Do not tell mo it is no part of the duty of a Member of Parliament to indulge in negative criticism That is a doctrine invented by this Government. We are never to say anything about any measure unless we are prepared immediately, without their official information, without the advantage of their information, without any of those means which the constitution furnishes for the purpose of promoting legislation, to forthwith produce a cut and dried scheme superior to their own. I utterly repudiate that idea. So far as Ireland is concerned, I say, on broad general lines, I am not averse to a well-considered and even generous scheme for Ireland, provided, and that is where I differ from my right hon. Friend opposite, the principles of self-government are applied in all its parts.
I make two conditions, and these are the last words I shall say to the House. There must be some prospect of the acceptance of the scheme, I will not say by the whole of Ireland, but by some considerable body of Irish opinion. It is nonsense, fantastic nonsense, to enforce any scheme of self-government on a country that utterly rejects it. What kind of self-government is that which the whole people of a country refuse? The other condition that I put is that you
must not try constitutional experiments until the elementary functions of government are operating normally. So far as I understand, my right hon. Friend agrees with me there. He thinks it can be done by ceasing all measures of coercion. I am not concerned to defend everything done by the present Government. Some of its measures of coercion certainly appear to me such as I thought they had abandoned years ago as unsuccessful. But you should enforce, and enforce rigidly, the ordinary criminal law, and so amend your procedure as to take care that it is enforced. Until you have reduced Ireland to order and given liberty to all law-abiding subjects, I say that to attempt this constitutional experiment is gambling with the fate of the subjects of the Empire.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: This is a moment so grave and so tragic in the history of Ireland, in the history of England, and in the history of the world, that I deem it my duty to keep a curb on every strong feeling I have as regards the proposals of the Government and to discuss them in what I hope will be a perfectly calm and candid spirit. I might have been tempted to make observations on some parts of the speech of the Noble Lord who has just sat down, as, for instance, when he described the golden era that ended with the Conservative administration of Ireland in 1906, and the disorder which followed, and when he attributed that disorder to the proposals of the thon Liberal Government, I might have been tempted to give other reasons. But did I do so I should got into the region of controversies which for the moment I would regard as past. I am not going to say anything at all that may bring my hon. Friends from the opposite side, who represent the North of Ireland, into collision with me. I feel about Ireland, not merely as an Irishman, but, if I may so call myself, as a citizen of the world. On the very first night I took my place in this House, after 13 months in v America, I warned this Parliament that there was rising in America an anti-English agitation which would prove more powerful than anything we had experienced before. My warnings were unheeded. My hon. Friends and myself warned the right hon. Gentleman's Government that their policy in Ireland would bring the results which we see here to-day; but we have not been listened to,
and I have no hope that any words I may utter to-day by way of warning will receive any greater attention from the Government than those which they have neglected in the past.
I will dwell very briefly upon some of the points which have already been so well discussed by previous speakers. I need not dwell upon the point that this Bill has not the support of any section whatever of Irish opinion. Take the Southern Unionists. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness) has put down a Motion against the Bill, and so has my hon. Friend the Member for Rathmines (Sir M. Dockrell). I understand that a meeting of Southern Unionists, held in the precincts of this House, condemned the Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Mr. Jellett) is so alarmed by the Bill that he is actually asking for a subsidy from the Government to enable him to emigrate. The Nationalists, represented by my few hon. Friends here on these Benches, are against the Bill. The Sinn Feiners regard it with such contempt that I doubt if any of them have ever read a line of the Bill. So far as the Gentlemen who represent the Orange Constituencies in Ulster are concerned, we have not yet heard their policy definitely announced on the Second Reading, but if I am to draw any inference from the previous utterances of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Duncairn (Sir E. Carson) and his colleagues, they are willing to submit, but not to support, the Bill. Swearing that they will never consent, they consent to the Bill, but they will not support it. It is an extraordinary phenomenon, unparalleled in the history of Ireland or any other country, that this Bill for the better government of Ireland, as it is called, will be carried in this House, perhaps by a large majority, without a single Irishmen voting in its favour. If you talk of imposing a Bill upon a country, I do not know of any more extraordinary form of imposition than to impose upon Ireland a Bill which has not a single Irish vote in its favour, nor a single section of the Irish people.
It is said that the rights of minorities will be protected. That question will be stated much better than I can by the Southern Unionists; but what becomes of
all the vaticinations about the future of Protestantism and of the Protestants in Ireland? A favourite cry when this struggle began, many years ago, was that Home Rule was Roman, and that all the Protestants, therefore, would be deprived of all their personal and religious liberty. In face of that cry, the big Protestant brother of the North abandons his weaker brother to the mercy of all those bigots and persecutors who mean to interfere with his religious and personal liberty. I may allude to another minority. What about the Covenanters of Donegal and Cavan and Monaghan? I understand that if any particular item in the Covenant is more vehement or more resolute than another, it is that, under no circumstances or conditions whatsoever, should that Protestant minority of Donegal and Cavan and Monaghan be abandoned by their coreligionists in the six counties; yet the Covenanters of Donegal and Cavan and Monaghan are given up to the Papists and Nationalists. It may be a surprise, to some English hon. Members at least, to hear that there is a considerable Catholic and Nationalist minority in the six counties. Moreover, do not run away with the idea that my hon. Friends the Members for Belfast represent all the Protestants in the North. In my opinion they do not represent the real spirit of Protestantism at all in any county, but perhaps I should not have made that observation, as I am not dealing with religious opinions. The Unionists were not able to carry an anti-Home Rule resolution in the annual gathering of the Presbyterian clergymen of Ulster, and they had to withdraw the proposal. That, at any rate, is my information, but I will take it that the minority in the six counties represent only Catholics and Home Rulers. That minority is left entirely at the mercy of the Northern part. My hon. Friends must pardon me for saying this, but in my opinion the only minority in Ireland that is oppressed today is the Catholic minority in the North of Ireland. I will not, however, dwell upon that; I will leave that to my hon. Friend the Member for Falls (Mr. Devlin), who knows much more about it than I do. This Bill, which rests upon the protection of the rights of minorities, is full of proposals to abandon all the minorities of Ireland.
Let me take another point in which I cannot see that the Bill carries out its
alleged intentions. The Noble Lord opposite (Lord E. Cecil) dwelt, and very properly dwelt, on this Bill as professing that it will restore order in Ireland. Will it restore order m Ireland? How is it going to restore order in Ireland? There is to be a Southern Parliament. Of whom will it consist? I start with the proposition that these proposals of the Government are regarded, not merely as unsatisfactory, but as so unsatisfactory as to be an outrage upon the national feeling of Ireland. Every Member sent to that Southern Parliament will be sent there with the purpose of breaking up these proposals, and substituting for them, not a sham executive, but a real executive—not a sham parliament but a real parliament. As that will be its object, the process will take the most violent form. I agree with the Noble Lord that what the Government wants in Ireland to restore order is, above all, the support of public opinion. I believe that that can be got by a proper policy. I do not believe that this mood of reckless, tragic, terrible madness is permanent in Ireland. I believe it is the result of causes into which I have promised not to go, and I believe that, both in Ireland and America, there is a large body of sane opinion which might be gained for a real and genuine measure of self-government. What will this Southern Parliament consist of? Either of two things will happen. I think the Sinn Feiners will stand for the constituencies, if only for the purpose of keeping other people out, and in every, or nearly every, case they will be returned, and you will have a Sinn Fein Parliament. What is that going to do? Under the Bill it has to take the oath of allegiance. By their policy and their pledges to their supporters, they are bound not to take the oath of allegiance, and they will use that parliament, not for the purpose of helping towards the creation of a united or a peaceful Ireland, but they will use it for Sinn Fein purposes. You will have a Southern Parliament nominally with the responsibility and the power of governing to a certain degree—a very insufficient degree, as I hold—26 counties of Ireland. That is a formidable weapon. But supposing—to use a horrible phrase which has been introduced into our vocabulary—they do not function, then they will not even be able to preserve order, and, therefore, even if they had the will to govern Ireland and restore it to peace
and order, they would not have the power. Who is going to keep peace and order now? Dublin Castle? They cannot keep peace and order in Ireland now. Will Dublin Castle be better able to keep peace and order in Ireland, when side by side, within a few yards of it, there is a legislature created by this Bill, almost certainly with co-equal authority so far as the support of the country is concerned? If over you had a condominium leading to an increase of disorder and crime, and the paralysis of all government, you could not have it in a more pregnant form than in thus putting Dublin Castle on the one side to govern Ireland and a Sinn Fein Parliament on the other to present it. The Noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil) gave some figures with regard to the amount of crime in Ireland. His figures were not brought up to the last week or two, but they show a steady increase of crime.

Lord R. CECIL: They show a very remarkable increase this year.

Mr. O'CONNOR: I am going to tell the Noble Lord a fact which is even more remarkable than that general statement. There never have been so many crimes, or such open crimes, even in this year, as in the interval since the Noble Lord's figures. Almost the worst crimes we have ever had have been within the last fortnight or three weeks. I call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to this fact. Everybody knows that the Dublin correspondent of the London "Times" is a well-known and very able Conservative journalist in Dublin. I say that lest any of the hon. Gentlemen should scoff at his testimony. [Interruption.] I always understood he was a Conservative. Anyhow, he cannot be described as a Nationalist or a Sinn Feiner. When he sent to his paper the other day a very careful, but at the same time, alarming account of the state of feeling in Ireland, and especially in Dublin, after that unfortunate affray with the soldiers, he attributed the electrical feeling in Dublin largely to the bad impression made by these proposals. If this Bill passes into law, if the southern legislature comes into existence I ask the Prime Minister, and still more the Chief Secretary, to put his hand on his heart and say, "I can withdraw one single soldier from Ireland." Can he? Not one. It is more
probable that he will have to increase the number of soldiers in Ireland. Therefore, so far as this is described as a Bill for the better government of Ireland and to restore civil order, it is a Bill for worsening the government of Ireland and increasing the disorder.
I come now to the case of Ulster. Perhaps my hon. Friends from Ulster will be surprised to hear the statement from me that, being a man of peace and a man of compromise, I have always been anxious to go to the very farthest lengths I could to mitigate their hostility to the self-government of the land which is theirs as well as mine, and which I am sure they love as well as I do. Therefore I was a party, with the Prime Minister, to the negotiations of 1916, the breakdown of which is partly responsible for the terrible position we have in Ireland to-day. These proposals imposed upon us especially two propositions which in quieter times we should have rejected, but, although we agreed to the exclusion of six counties of Ulster, we did it under special conditions. There was one thing we never contemplated and for which we never provided. I am not sure that some hon. Members opposite may not have contemplated or wanted it themselves. I know there are many Orange representatives from Ireland who, instead of desiring to build up buttresses standing between the enclave of Orangism in the North of Ireland and the rest of Ireland, would be only too glad if they could remove the obstacle of bitter racial and religious feeling which unfortunately divide the two peoples. We never contemplated anything like permanence. We should have rejected the proposal if it had been contemplated that they should be permanent. Upon my word, intimately as I thought I knew the mind of the Prime Minister, and I think I have had as many opportunities of knowing his mind as a personal friend for many years as any man in this House, I cannot imagine what came into that mind when he made these proposals with regard to Ulster. There is not a line of these proposals which does not almost make certain the permanence of the separation between the six counties and the rest of Ireland. In the first place it is called a Parliament. Why a Parliament? It is only extraordinarily big or rich countries that require two Parliaments Why not councils? The word "Parliament" was deliberately chosen to
put the stamp of permanence upon it. Indeed, the Chief Secretary avowed it. He used the words "sovereign Parliament." When any of us in the old days talked about a Parliament on College Green for the whole nation and casually used the words "sovereign Parliament" we were immediately pounced upon as making a deadly attack upon the sovereignty of the Imperial Parliament and the unity of the Empire. And, said the right hon. Gentleman, so that there might be no mistake as to his meaning, "in order to mark the sovereignty of the Parliament we are resolved to give it the signs and the symbols."
What are the signs and the symbols? They are to have a separate judiciary. They are not satisfied with one Lord Chief Justice in Ireland. They have two. There is a Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland and a Lord Chief Justice of Southern Ireland. There are puisne judges in the North of Ireland and puisne judges in the South of Ireland. As there is a Parliament, I assume there will be a Speaker, a Chairman of Ways and Moans, and a Sergeant-at-Arms, and there will be Cabinet Ministers and Crown Prosecutors. Since Jupiter wooed Danae with a shower of gold there has never been anything so bounteous as the bestowal of offices in this Parliament. I see some of my hon. Friends opposite who, like myself, pursue the arduous but precarious profession of letters. Let them be quite easy in their mind. They can drop their pens. They can throw away their typewriters. They can dismiss their secretaries. There will be jobs to go all round. There is a famous passage in one of the lectures of Thackeray, I think in the "Four Georges," where he made a pathetic contrast between the man of letters in peace time and the man of letters in the days of Queen Anne, when Addison got his £300 a year as Commissioner of Excise and Dick Steele got his £300 a year and a gazetteership for writing the "Christian Hero" and being the Governor of the Royal Company of Comedians. My hon. Friend opposite has always got a Christian hero in his leader, the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson), and I am sure there are plenty of comedians in Belfast who accept him as their governor. The rosy days of Queen Anne are coming to the journalists and men of letters in the North of Ireland. My hon.
Friend says they have nearly all got jobs. I disagree with him. Not even omnipotence itself could create as many jobs as the lawyers of Ireland desire. There is one judgeship which is not Northern or Southern, but both, and a great many changes are made in that judgeship. In the first place, the holder of it ceases to be an executive officer. He now becomes merely a judge. As he ceases to be an executive officer of course he does not go out with the Government. He gets permanence. Who is the present Lord Chancellor of Ireland? My hon. Friend knows nothing about him. He may know his name, but that is all he knows about hint. He does not know his dark and guilty history. He has taken good care of himself under this Bill, or the Government have taken good care of him.
Here you have every inducement to create vested interests and to make that partition permanent instead of trenchant. Does that make for Irish unity? However, all these objections disappear because we have an Executive Council. I am quite prepared to treat my hon. Friends of Orange principles from Ulster as men and brothers, but I will not treat them as super-men with higher rights than men of other creeds or other politics. But this Bill makes them all super-men. Nietzsche in his wildest moments never thought of creating a super-man like the Orangeman. What is he? He is at once a minority which must be protected and a majority though he is in a minority. He is not merely an individual man claiming all his rights as an individual, but he is an individual of one section of religious opinion and political thought who is equal to five or six men of another set of religious opinions and political thought. I do not believe the Orange community of the North of Ireland is more than one-sixth of the population. There are in Derry 42 per cent. of Catholics and 46 per cent. in Armagh. That is a very considerable minority. We never hear anything about them. We only hear of the homogeneous community. In Fermanagh and Tyrone, two of the counties excluded under the Government proposal, you have actually a Catholic and Nationalist majority. But the Catholic majority becomes a minority when it is opposed by Orangemen. That runs all through the scheme. This sixth of the population, which is the richer section according to
the statement, gets exactly the same amount to start with, £1,000,000, as the majority of five-sixths of the people. Why should not the super-men have super-money?
7.0 P.M.
Look what these supermen can do under this Bill. The Executive Council is described as the bridge and the link between the two Parliaments. I do not know whether that exhausts all the phrases used by the Chief Secretary. I was surprised that he did not say it was a great liaison or some such thing. This Council consists of forty members, twenty of whom are given to five-sixths of Ireland and twenty are given to Ulster. Am I not right in calling the Orangemen supermen under this Bill. Not a single step towards creating a sham power into a real power, or of creating partition into unity, can be taken by this Executive Council of forty without the will and approval of the twenty who represent one-sixth of the nation. I tell the Prime Minister, as I have told many an English statesman before, that he is doing wrong to Ireland and doing a greater wrong to England by proposals of this sort. I have spent twenty-one years of my life in Ireland and the remaining 50 years in England, and as one who knows the characters of the two peoples, I say that it is unfair to what I believe in my soul to be the generous, the freedom-loving, and the fair-play loving Englishman to present him in this guise to the Irish people-In the old days, what did England mean to Ireland? What did Englishmen mean to Ireland? All they knew of England was a soldier with a bayonet and a rifle driving them out not to voluntary but to involuntary emigration, and all they knew of England was the cruel law of England that was destroying their country and driving their millions to other parts of the world. All they know of England, represented by the proposals of this Bill, is that there is a small minority of the Irish people who, because they happen to have the same religion and something of the same blood as the people of England, are made the masters and arbiters and oppressors of the majority of Irish people. It is this attempt to establish an English garrison in Ireland, with all these artificial, exaggerated powers, that makes so many Sinn Feiners successful in their appeal to the young
people of Ireland, when they say that England has always been and will always be the perfidious masters of the Irish people against the will of the majority.
This executive council is to have ridiculous and farcical powers. In these matters the right hon. Gentleman is not only behind the opinion of Ireland, but he is behind the opinion of England, and he is behind the opinion of the House of Commons. In Ireland, opinion has gone beyond the Act of 1914 towards a republic. I do not see any possibility of a republic being established either by consent or revolution. Public opinion in England has gone beyond the Act of 1914.

Brigadier-General CROFT: Public opinion was never consulted by the Act of 1914.

Mr. O'CONNOR: The Act of 1914 has been disparaged a good deal. Give me the Act of 1914 with the few Amendments which were contemplated in the Act itself, and with the due safeguards for Ulster, which I am quite willing to accept.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: And the finance.

Mr. O'CONNOR: The hon. Member ought not to make so irrelevant an observation. Of course, the Act of 1914 has broken down in its finance. The finance of the Act of 1914 was made at a time when Ireland produced in taxation £1,500,000 loss than it cost the Imperial Exchequer, and the Imperial Exchequer accordingly made a condition limiting the financial powers of the Irish Government until this money was paid; but in Section 23, which is the finance section of the 1914 Act, it is provided that if that system of indebtedness by Ireland to England ceases for three years, then all the finance of that Act was to be revised, with a view to giving greater power to the Irish Government. As everybody knows, Ireland now produces two or three times beyond what she costs. Therefore, the state of things contemplated by Section 23 comes into existence, and the necessary modifications would have to be made. If the right hon. Gentle man had approached this subject with the vision and courage which I expected from him, he would have done what Section 23 contemplated. He would have given to Ireland, as contemplated by the section, fiscal autonomy
without which political autonomy is no use. Compare the Act of 1914 with the provisions of this Bill. In the first place the Executive Council cannot stir hand or foot towards the union of Ireland or towards the creation of a real legislature except with the permission of hon. Gentlemen opposite. I am not arrogant, but when I am told that, as an Irishman, I cannot move hand or foot unless I get the consent of one-sixth of my countrymen, then my sense as a free citizen revolts against it, and so will the sense of all the southern people of Ireland, without distinction of politics or creed. This Executive Council is a sham. There is no power for it to act in the way I have indicated, unless the representatives of the majority of one-sixth of the people are graciously ready to give the power.
The Act of 1914 was a solemn bond between England and Ireland. It was a treaty of peace between England and Ireland. By this Bill the right hon. Gentleman proposes to repeal that. That is the only effective Clause in all these proposals. My hon. and gallant Friend (Brig.-General Croft) ought to know something about Ireland before he interrupts an Irishman who has spent over 40 years in the House of Commons trying to get into heads as intelligent as his own something as to the realities affecting Ireland. The Act of 1914 was regarded as a solemn Act of reconciliation between the peoples of England and Ireland. It was on the strength of that treaty of peace giving liberty to Ireland that my hon. and deceased Friend (Mr. Redmond) was able to make his appeal to Ireland to stand by the Empire in its hour of agony, and no longer to act on the old phrase that England's difficulty was Ireland's opportunity, except in the sense that it gave Ireland an opportunity of standing by England when she was fighting the battle of freedom against militarism all over the world. It was on the strength of that treaty that tens of thousands of young Irishmen fought and tons of thousands of young Irishmen died, and if the right hon. Gentleman succeeds in repealing that Act, Ireland will regard his action as one of the most perfidious betrayals which she has ever had to endure at the hands of England.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I no not know whether I shall be too sanguine if
I express the hope that this may be the last of a great series of historic debates on proposals for the better government of Ireland. I confess that to me the opening of the Debate is rather tragic and rather pathetic. Coming once again to the consideration of this subject after the close of the immense struggle in which we have been engaged, and coming as one would have hoped with new minds, with a fresh outlook and forgetting something of the old controversy and anxious to make a new peace, we are back again traversing the old difficulty, with a repetition of the old taunts, and with the hopeless possibility of finding any solution. I hope this Debate will take a more hopeful aspect as it proceeds. I trust that as the new recruits to this House who have spent less time in the midst of Irish controversy, offer their contribution to the Debate, that we shall find that we have moved forward, that we are nearer a solution, and that we may in the passage of this Bill through Committee so shape it that, though it may not be immediately acceptable, it may yet by its own merits bring healing to this long open sore and prove a solution of our longstanding difficulty.
The Prime Minister has recently been taken to task about the coalition, and for the statement that under present circumstances this country can only be governed by a coalition. For the moment there is a coalition against this Bill. That coalition consists of the right hon. Gentleman who moved the rejection of the Bill (Mr. Clynes), my right hon. Friend, the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil), and the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. O'Connor). They are absolutely united in their opposition to this Bill, but there agreement stops there. The earlier speakers agreed upon the condition of Ireland; that it is shocking and grave enough, but they do not agree about the remedy. The right hon. Gentleman who spoke for the Labour party, finding the horse out of control, proposes that we should throw the reins on its neck and that it shall sometime or another come to rest without having smashed itself or anybody else. My Noble Friend on the contrary finds that the patient is ill and in a condition which is a danger alike to himself and others, and he proposes to put a straight waistcoat on him, and do nothing until he calms down, while the hon. Member
who spoke last thinks not in terms of the conditions of Ireland to-day, but in terms of long past controversies. And he is satisfied that if we would only entrust him with power and give him control he would quickly unite all parties by the simple expedient of taking the Act of 1914 with Amendments as he himself would think proper to make.
The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Clynes) when challenged for an alternative, said that he was prepared to give one. My Noble Friend said that he might be challenged for an alternative, but that that was no business of his. But there was not much difference between them, on that point at any rate, for the alternative of the spokesman of the Labour party was so vague, so general in its terms that though I could not undertake to be bound by my interpretation of it, as I listened to it, yet I should be surprised when I see it in print if there was anything in it which I could not myself accept. The right hon. Gentleman lays down that the powers and rights of the Irish Parliament must be circumscribed by such limits as are set by the safety of Great Britain, and that its powers must be such that full protection is given to minorities. They must be of a kind to secure that Ireland makes a fair contribution to the common expenses of the Empire. Very well; I accept all those principles. Our Bill is founded upon them. The powers given are the most generous that are compatible with the existing divisions in Ireland. They are automatically revisable if and when Ireland likes. When Ireland by union has shown herself fit for further extensions of power, and shown that power can be given to her and enjoyed by her not to the detriment of the Empire, but to its strength, then Ireland can come with a good grace to this House with demands for which she can expect to receive friendly and sympathetic consideration.
My Noble Friend, if I may deal in rather greater detail with his speech, compares the conditions in Ireland now with the conditions in Ireland when the unionist Government went out of office in 1905. I have nothing to repent of my past Unionist faith. I am not here to say that I think that the policy which we pursued was wrong. But I ask my Noble Friend, does he think that that is a possible policy to pursue now? I think that if it were a possible policy it would
be the right one. But I think that it is no longer a possible policy, and therefore it is the part of wisdom and of statesmanship to find an alternative. The Unionist policy broke down for one good reason, because our countrymen would not support it through good report and ill-report for a sufficient length of time. It demanded for its success the continuous support of this country, and when the Irish question became an acute factor of division between parties, when it became the very centre of the fiercest party struggles of our countrymen, divided as they were, so evenly between the great parties, it ceased to be possible to expect it to have that continuity of support which was necessary to secure its success.

Lord R. CECIL: I do not know whether my right hon. Friend will allow me to make an observation. I was not considering, at that period of my speech, the policy, whether good or bad. All I was pointing out was that it was possible to restore order in Ireland, and that it had been done at that time.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If that was the full bearing of my Noble Friend's reference, I accept it, but that carries me a stage further. I take it he is agreed, as we are all agreed, that the Government must do everything it can to uphold law. It is easy to talk of coercion. What is the meaning of coercion? Is it coercion when you hang a murderer? If that is coercion, the trouble in Ireland is not that there is too much, but that there is too little. Of course, it is essential to do everything we can to restore respect for law and protect life, and we will do it. But I do not think that it is useful to turn the Debate on the Second Heading of this Bill into discussion on law and order in Ireland, the methods of the police, the efficiency of the executive, or such other methods of administrative action, important as they are, as are involved in those questions. What I was dealing with is the objection, which I thought my Noble Friend had taken, and which Unionists may take, to reversing the old policy. Nobody likes to be asked to recant his faith. I invite nobody to recant his faith, whether I agreed with him before or not. But I invite hon. Members to recognise facts as they are, to bring as open and impartial mind as they can to the consideration
of a problem which, though in many respects the same, yet has so changed during the last four years that it presents itself to us to-day as a new problem requiring a new solution. My Noble Friend and other Unionists must remember that the Home Rule Act is on the Statute Book. The alternative to an amending Bill is that that Act comes into force. Nobody can say that there is any other alternative.

Brigadier-General CROFT: Repeal.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If my hon. and gallant Friend says that it is possible at this time of day to deal with the Irish question by simple repeal of that Act, he might as well be living in the dark ages. I am not going to waste time in arguing what I conceive to be the idiosyncracy of an individual Member.

Brigadier-General CROFT: And a great many others.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: A single Member who has a whole party to himself. We are told that union amongst Irishmen must be the basis of any proposals that we make. When has there been unity among Irishmen on anything except when we deprive them of the offices that they ought to enjoy, and when we actually hear the hon. Member for the Scotland Division make it one of the grievances of this Bill, that there will be so many offices which Irishmen may occupy in their country, I cannot think that the opposition to this Bill is quite so vehement as he describes it.

Mr. O'CONNOR: Has the right hon. Gentleman ever known me or any member of my party either to ask for or to take an office under the Government?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know when the hon. Gentleman was last in Ireland, but I think that he will find that members of his party are not altogether anxious to refuse offices for themselves in that country.

Mr. O'CONNOR: That is very unfair.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think not. Look at all the appointments by county councils and borough councils, whether under the control of other people or under the control of the hon. Member's own particular section. I do not think that there is anything unfair in that.

Mr. O'CONNOR: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman would consciously say anything unfair, but I think that he is lacking in generosity in not recognising the fact that during all the existence of the Irish party, for nearly 50 years, there was never a member of that party in this House who had asked for himself or anybody else any office in this House.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I never suggested that members of the party to which the hon. Gentleman belongs were anxious to accept office from any Government. I think that it is to be regretted. Had they done so they might have contributed to the solution of our difficulties. You cannot safely repeal the Act of 1914. You cannot safely allow it to come into force. Not a soul in Ireland wants that Act. I listened to the hon. Member for the Scotland Division and, if he had his own sweet will, then when he has cut this out and when he has put that in, and when he has clipped the horns of the supermen, then he would put it into force. Where then is the union of Ireland or of Irishmen which is to be the successful basis for the working of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman makes the same plea. He says that we are dividing Ireland. It is a paradox of ours that the only hope of union in Ireland is to recognise her present division. The right hon. Gentleman says that this Bill is dividing Ireland on religious lines. It is not we who are dividing Ireland. It is not we who made the bitterness of religious strife. It is not we who made party coincide with the religious differences. Those are facts of the situation which have embarrassed every English statesman who has had to deal with Ireland. Those are difficulties which no Statesman can remove. The cure lies in the hands of Irishmen themselves. It can come only from them.
For the first time in its history since the Act of Union, if this Bill passes, it will be in the power of Ireland to create for itself, unhindered and uncriticised by us, a common Parliament for the whole of Ireland. The hon. Member was not always consistent himself. He said that he knew many were desirous, not of buttressing up the old differences, or creating a new war of separation, but of breaking down the separation that existed, and bringing Irishmen together.
That is the task which now lies before us. The solution of it will be within their own power. What is needed? Confidence, the confidence of one Irishman in another. How is that to be won? If murder stalks in the streets of Dublin in broad daylight, if Southern Ireland gives its sympathy or lends a passive countenance to disloyalty and treason, there will be no united Ireland, and I say, thank God for that. But if Southern Ireland—I was going to say recovered its sanity—if the sane men recovered their power—

Mr. O'CONNOR: Give us the chance.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: We have given you the chance. If the real feeling of Irishmen expressed in this House within the last few years by the two brothers Redmond, if that feeling comes to life again and asserts its strength, as I believe it will, then what you cannot do with force and what you ought not to do with force, you may do by affection, by sympathy; you may win Ulster, and make Ulster one of the proudest ornaments in the Parliament of Dublin. The right hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) objected to any coercion in Ireland, except the coercion of Ulster. Why does he draw that distinction? He said it was a fatal thing that the right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) should have promised that Ulster would not be coerced. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that he and a Labour Government would like to take on the task, as the first olive branch and the first sign of their statesmanship, of coercing the six counties of Ulster? I think the right hon. Gentleman would find that there was wisdom in the promise of the right hon. Member for Paisley, and that that promise is now as binding on the British Government as the word of any Prime Minister spoken in the most solemn circumstances, spoken for value then received, and spoken not only for himself but for his successors The hon. Member for Scotland Yard—(Laughter)—I mean for the Scotland Division of Liverpool. In my young days in this House there were two unfailing jokes. One has, unfortunately, owing to change of habit, passed out of our reach. It was when a Member in the middle of his speech sat down on his own hat. The other was to allude to the hon. Gentleman as the hon. Member for Scotland Yard.

Mr. O'CONNOR: A very useful joke sometimes.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member said the passing of the Act was a solemn bargain. Not less solemn was the pledge by which it was accompanied, that Ulster should not be coerced. What does the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Clynes) offer as his solution? The threat of the coercion of Ulster in the background—a cessation of all immediate coercion only to be resumed if Ulster becomes recalcitrant. What next? The calling of a new Convention. Would the new Convention be more successful than the old? We invited Irishmen to come together and agree, but they were unable to reach agreement. Sinn Feinism, which he quotes against this Bill, refused to take any part in the Convention. Suppose a Convention did take place and suppose that Sinn Fein had a majority, is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to accept whatever solution Sinn Fein may propose? Suppose they carried at the Convention a resolution in favour of a Republic. The right hon. Gentleman would reject it. Suppose they decided in favour of an Irish army. The right hon. Gentleman would reject it. Suppose they refused to make a contribution to Imperial expenses. The right hon. Gentleman would exact it. Is not the right hon. Gentleman a little rash in saying that he will never move in Ireland without the assent of Irishmen? He will have to govern Ireland for a very long time before he is happy enough to secure unanimity on his own terms. After all, what the House must do is to face the facts. Is it likely that there would be immediate union between Ulster and the South? Is it likely that those who opposed Mr. Redmond will fall at once on the necks of those who, in his day, when he was fighting for the Empire and for freedom, persecuted him and saddened the last years of his life? It is not likely. It was not likely even before these things happened.
I say what is notorious when I state that at the time of the Buckingham Palace Conference the leaders of the Nationalist party and the leaders of the Ulstermen felt that the proposal to bring them together in conference was a mistake, for it was impossible to expect either of them to accept beforehand such a solution as both of them might have acquiesced in if it was
settled for them. It is obvious that that must be so in a struggle which has been so bitter and so long drawn out. You cannot expect the contending parties to lay down their arms at once; you cannot expect the combatants to shake hands and be friends and to trust one another completely with such bitter memories so recently in their minds. Confidence is a plant of slow growth. You have to tend it and care for it before you can see that union which this Bill makes possible, which may make the cry of "Ireland a nation" not merely the battle-cry of a party, but a real fact in the world's history. It is in the belief that by a measure of this kind, generous in all that concerns the relations of this country to Ireland, generous in its trust that wiser counsels will prevail and the best spirit in Ireland take the lead—it is in the hope that a Bill of this kind may so work for the peace of Ireland and the strength of the Empire, that we have laid the proposal before the House. And we shall do our best to pass it into law.

Captain CRAIG: The Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed a hope that the speaker who followed him would be able to speak more hopefully with reference to the Bill than those who had preceded him. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman will be able to place me amongst the pessimists or the optimists after he has heard me. I felt almost like a blushing girl when I heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer beseech hon. Members opposite to woo and win us Ulstermen. Why do hon. Members opposite want to woo and win Ulster? Why are the Nationalists and Sinn Feiners not content with powers of their own m 26 out of 32 counties in Ireland? Why do they deny to those who hold views diametrically opposed to them on almost every conceivable subject the right to govern themselves or to remain a part of the United Kingdom? It is because in any Home Rule Government in Ireland the position of Ulster, with the comparative wealth of Belfast and the surrounding country, will be very useful to hon. Members. There has been a great deal said in this Debate about the time when there is to be union between us. It has been said that this Bill lends itself to the union of Ulster and the rest of Ireland. I would not be fair to the House if I lent the slightest hope of that union arising within
the lifetime of any man in this House. I do not believe it for a moment.
I will ask hon. Members of the Labour party, who are the chief allies and the best friends of the Nationalist party in this House, who have, I understand, pledged themselves practically to follow the Nationalist party wherever it may lead—I ask them to explain why we should be willing to ally ourselves with the Nationalists? Do the Labour party deliberately ask us to throw in our lot with the men who are predominant in Ireland to-day, the men to whom murder is a daily task, men who are devastating Ireland as rapidly as they can? If they do ask, let me say, once and for all, that under no circumstances will we ever do so.
I propose to confine myself very strictly to the attitude which Ulster takes with regard to this Bill or at least the attitude which I take, and I believe that attitude represents the view taken, or to be taken, by a very large percentage of the inhabitants of that province. With the prospect of this Bill passing into law, we Ulstermen find ourselves face to face with a most extraordinary paradox. While on the one hand our hatred and detestation of Home Rule and all connected with it is as great as ever it was, and in fact more so owing to the action of the predominant party in Ireland to-day, yet on the other hand, we do see in this Bill the realisation of the objects which we aimed at when we raised our volunteer force and when we armed ourselves in 1913 and 1914. Our enemies at that time said that in taking those steps—unconstitutional steps I am quite willing to admit—we were doing so in order to attempt to prevent the Nationalist part of Ireland from attaining their ideal, Home Rule, for that part of Ireland. That charge was utterly false. We did nothing of the kind. We knew from the state of political parties at the time and the trend of political events that the Home Rule Bill was bound to pass into law. All we ever attempted to do and had in mind to do was to prevent Home Rule from being imposed upon Ulster. Fortunately our volunteers never came into contact with the forces either of the Crown or Nationalists or anybody else. The War intervened and put a stop to our domestic quarrels as everybody knows, and our thoughts were
turned to other and more important matters. What would have happened if war had not intervened probably only the right hon. Member for Paisley can tell. We do not know, but it is safe to assume that the Government at the commencement of the War realised that it could not with impunity impose Home Rule, with a Dublin Parliament, on practically a million of the Kingdom's most loyal and patriotic citizens.

Mr. O'CONNOR: Without inciting them to rebellion.

Captain CRAIG: With impunity, and that covers a whole lot of things. If the hon. Member would like to know exactly what I mean, I will tell him. If the Ulster Volunteers had come into contact with the forces of the Crown, and I thank God they never did, I believe that the very first loyal Ulsterman who would have been shot and the very first drop of Protestant Ulster blood which would have been shed would have aroused such a howl of indignation, not only over England, but throughout the whole British Empire, that the Radical Government and the then Prime Minister would have been swept away like leaves before the wind. Fortunately that did not happen. War broke out and the Act of 1914 was put on the Statute Book. How it got there I do not intend to waste time in recounting. But when it was put on the Statute Book, a pledge was given that when the War was over no attempt would be made to impose it until Amendments had been added safeguarding the position of Ulster. The Bill to-day is the Amending Bill which was promised at that time, and because it gives Ulster a Parliament of its own, and sets up a state of affairs which will prevent, I believe, for all time Ulster being forced into a Parliament in Dublin without its own consent; because it does those two things, I say that the Bill practically gives us everything that we fought for, everything that we armed ourselves for and to attain which we raised our Volunteers in 1913 and 1914. As the House is probably aware, the Ulster Unionist Council, which is the mouthpiece of Unionist opinion in Ulster, has recommended the Ulster Members not to vote against this Bill, but at the same time to take no responsibility for passing it into law. I took part in those
deliberations, as did most of my friends sitting near me, and I entirely agree with the line of action recommended by that body, and I intend to act on it.
I feel, however, that the fact that an Ulster Member, especially one who has fought against Home Rule for eighteen years in this House, should abstain from voting against a measure of Homo Rule merely because Ulster is excluded from it, requires more than a passing explanation. I say quite frankly, if I thought the defeat of this Bill would end the whole of the controversy I would move heaven and earth to have it defeated, but I am under no such delusion as that, and I have to confess sorrowfully but definitely that I believe Home Rule in some shape or form, either now or in the immediate future, is inevitable. If one wanted any further proof of that there is the speech which has just been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the fact that the Government are determined to pass this Bill. That they should bring forward such a Bill at a moment when the overwhelming majority of the Roman Catholic population of Ireland is in practically open rebellion against this country, and when outrage stalks through the south and west of the country almost absolutely unchecked, and when officials of the Crown are murdered day after day, and not only officials of the Crown, but the King's own private subjects, and when, in fact, Ireland is groaning under a condition of lawlessness, the like of which has never been known before, I say if any proof were needed that Homo Rule is inevitable it would be the fact that the Government have introduced this Bill and have confessed themselves determined to carry it into law at such a time as this. If they do that at this time, how much more would they do it in five or six years' time when Ireland has been reduced once more to a peaceful condition. I am arguing and trying to show why I consider Home Rule absolutely inevitable.
Before the War the whole of the Liberal party and the Labour party were in favour of Home Rule without any partition. To-day, I very gratefully acknowledge that the Liberal Members of the Coalition have recognised the right of Ulster to separate treatment. But while
from the Ulster position that is a great advance, from the point of view of the inevitability of Home Rule we must recognise that the whole of the Unionist Members of the Coalition have abandoned their opposition to Home Rule and are now prepared to vote for Home Rule. That is a very significant fact. It is true that a certain number of Unionist Members have lately developed a certain activity in opposition to this Bill and I understand that a certain number of them have interviewed the Leader of the House on the subject, but they must know perfectly well that such action as that at such a time is perfectly futile. If they were really opposed to the Bill the time to have raised their voice in opposition to it was over a year ago when the lines on which this Coalition Government was being formed were being discussed. They did not do that, and therefore I say they are out of court and their action will be futile in seriously opposing the Bill to-day. There is another section of the Unionist party, influenced I believe by the Unionists in the south and west of Ireland, who, I understand, are opposed to the Bill containing separate treatment of Ulster. Frankly, I cannot understand the attitude taken up by those hon. Gentlemen, because I should have thought if there was any one thing that would have been said to have been in the forefront of the Unionist programme more than another it was the safeguarding of the interests of Ulster in case of any Home Rule Bill being introduced into this House. There fore, I do not greatly fear the efforts of those Gentlemen to interfere with the position which has been accorded to Ulster in this Bill.
The inevitability of Homo Rule is seen in the constituencies also. I have had to deal with an organisation that has had to send out speakers on the Ulster position and speakers against Home Rule. I found almost without exception that whilst speakers who are prepared to put the Ulster case before a constituency are welcome, speakers whose intention it is to speak against Home Rule as a whole are not wanted. Under those circumstances, and taking those facts into consideration, is it to be wondered at that I and my colleagues for Ulster have come to the conclusion that all parties in the State have determined to pass the Home Rule Bill and that Home Rule either
new or in the very near future is absolutely inevitable? Having arrived at that conclusion, I take it that the duty of Ulster's representatives is to see that the position of Ulster is made as secure as possible.

Mr. DOYLE: Do you accept the nine counties of Ulster?

8.0 P.M.

Captain CRAIG: I will deal with that in a moment. When the Government made it known that a Bill was to be introduced giving separate treatment to Ulster, three problems of the gravest character faced the Ulster Members of Parliament and the Ulster people. The first of those was the attitude which we were to take towards the Bill, and that I have already dealt with; the second was as to the area of the excluded area; and thirdly we had to ask ourselves the question, Were we to ask for a Parliament of our own in Ulster, or were we to ask to be loft as part of the United Kingdom, sending Members as at present to this House? We would much prefer to remain part and parcel of the United Kingdom. We have prospered, we have made our province prosperous under the Union, and under the laws passed by this House and administered by officers appointed by this House. We do not in any way desire to recede from a position which has been in every way satisfactory to us, but we have many enemies in this country, and we feel that an Ulster without a Parliament of its own would not be in nearly as strong a position as one in which a Parliament had been set up where the Executive had been appointed and where above all the paraphernalia of Government was already in existence. We believe that so long as we were without a Parliament of our own constant attacks would be made upon us, and constant attempts would be made by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) and his friends to draw us into a Dublin Parliament, and that is the last thing in the world that we desire to see happen. We profoundly distrust the Labour party and we profoundly distrust the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith), We believe that if either of those parties, or the two in combination, were once more in power our chances; of remaining a part of the United Kingdom would be very
small indeed. We see our safety, therefore, in having a Parliament of our own, for we believe that once a Parliament is sot up and working well, as I have no doubt it would in Ulster, we should fear no one, and we feel that we would then be in a position of absolute security and that we could remain in that position until such time as we of our own volition and desire wished to join the hon. Member (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) opposite. That contingency, I repeat, is some considerable way off. We do not know how long, if we did not take a Parliament, our Unionist friends in this country could hold the fort against the forces which would be brought to bear upon them, and we know that the attempts on our liberty would be repeated time and again, and therefore I say that we prefer to have a Parliament, although we do not want one of our own. Our position under such a Parliament will not be as good as it is at the present moment, for we should be then, to a certain extent, separated from England, and our businesses would undoubtedly suffer, though I admit readily that on the other hand the removal of the menace of a Dublin Home Rule Parliament would do very much to stimulate trade and commerce, which has undoubtedly suffered from the fact that this sword of Damocles has been hanging over our heads for so many years.
I come now to the third and the most distressing of the problems we had to face, and I refer to that of the area. As hon. Members know, the area over which the North of Ireland Parliament is to have jurisdiction is the six counties of Antrim, Down, Armagh, Londonderry, Tyrone and Fermanagh. The three Ulster counties of Monaghan, Cavan and Donegal are to be handed over to the South of Ireland Parliament. How the position of affairs in a Parliament of nine counties and in a Parliament of six counties would be is shortly this. If we had a nine counties' Parliament, with 64 Members, the Unionist majority would be about three or four, but in a six counties' Parliament, with 52 Members, the Unionist majority would be about 10. The three excluded counties contain some 70,000 Unionists and 260,000 Sinn Feiners and Nationalists, and the addition of that large block of Sinn Feiners and National-
ists would reduce our majority to such a level that no sane man would undertake to carry on a Parliament with it. That is the position with which we were faced when we had to take the decision a few days ago as to whether we should call upon the Government to include the nine counties in the Bill or be satisfied with the six. It will be seen that the majority of Unionists in the nine counties' Parliament is very small indeed. A couple of Members sick, or two or three Members absent for some accidental reason, might in one evening hand over the entire Ulster Parliament and the entire Ulster position, for which we have fought so hard and so long, to the hon. Member and his friends, and that, of course, is a dreadful thing to contemplate. Nothing—and I say this with all sincerity, and I am sure everybody will believe me—nothing was more heartbreaking to us than to take the decision which we felt we had to take a few days ago in Belfast when we decreed more or less that our Unionist fellow countrymen in the three counties of Monaghan, Cavan and Donegal should remain outside the Ulster Parliament; but in judging our action we must ask hon. Members to try and place themselves in our position. They must remember that we are charged with the defence of the Ulster position, and surely that carries with it the duty of undertaking the government and the defence of as much of Ulster as we can hold. We quite frankly admit that we cannot hold the nine counties. I have given the respective figures of the Unionist and the Sinn Fein and Nationalist inhabitants in those three counties, and from them it is quite clear that as soon as the Ulster Parliament was set up, the first task which the Sinn Feiners would set themselves, in those three counties at any rate, would be to make government there absolutely impossible for us. They have made it impossible for the English Government in practically the whole of the South and West of Ireland, and we recognise facts sufficiently clearly to know that they could make it impossible for us to govern those three counties. Therefore, we have decided that, in the interests of the greater part of Ulster, it is better that we should give up those three counties rather than take on a bigger task than we are able to carry out.
I knew that the accusation would come sooner or later that we had broken the Covenant which we signed in 1912, when we bound ourselves—all the Unionists in all the counties of Ulster—to stand by one another in the crisis which then threatened. There has been a great deal said on this question of the breach of the Covenant by those of us who voted in favour of the six counties of Ulster, and I am quite prepared to admit a technical breach of that Covenant. But I say to those who charge me with that, that if I kept the Covenant in the letter as regards the excluded counties, I should be breaking it in the spirit, and true meaning, to the six counties. I see an hon. Member opposite shake his head. I would like to ask him what was the first object of the Covenant? It was to prevent a Dublin Parliament being imposed upon Ulster, and I would like to ask him how we could carry out the intention of that Covenant by assuming the government of such a large area in Ulster that we could not hold it, and in the course of a month or two, or possibly a few years, that area had to be handed over to the Dublin Parliament? Obviously, when we set ourselves to safeguard Ulster and to prevent Home Rule from being imposed upon us, the best way to carry that pledge into effect was to save as much as Ulster as we knew we could hold. To try to hold more than we could hold would seem an act of gross folly on our part, and in the difficult circumstances, I have no hesitation in saying we took the only commonsense business decision we could possibly take. On that matter I leave those who come after us to judge whether we took a right or a wrong decision.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer practically admitted that the policy of the Unionist Party had entirely changed with reference to Home Rule. I am not going into any recriminations about that fact, as fact it is. I recognise it, and it is that which makes me state plainly to-night that I look upon Home Rule as inevitable. If it is inevitable, surely it is my duty as an Ulsterman to do the best I can for Ulster. I admit that Ulster has been treated in a generous manner in this Bill. I am not referring to finance, because the financial Clauses of the Bill are, I regret to say, obscure, and the data upon which the finance is founded is not forthcoming, in
spite of the White Paper which was issued a few days ago. But that is a matter for Committee. I say in other respects the objects which we set out to attain in 1914 have been in a very great measure attained, and are included in this Bill. Therefore, while I take no responsibility for the Bill, and while I cannot understand how the Government have the folly to introduce, or to think of passing and putting into force, a Home Rule Bill while Ireland is in the out rageous position she is, to-day, and while I shall not vote against the Bill, I and my colleagues will do our best to improve it so far as possible in the Committee stage.

Mr. ALLEN PARKINSON: The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down made one or two remarkable admissions. He said that, although they are not in agreement in accepting a Parliament for Ulster, they really agree to it because they have been able to make such an arrangement as will give them a majority in the Ulster Parliament.

Captain CRAIG: I did not say we have made any arrangement whatever.

Mr. PARKINSON: If I understood the hon. and gallant Gentleman aright, he said if the whole nine Ulster counties were in the Ulster Parliament they would only have a majority of two or three, but by excluding three it would leave them with a working majority of ten. That does seem to me to show that there has been some bargain with a view to imposing on Ulster a Parliament. He also made one other admission, and that is that they are prepared even to desert their own people and Unionist comrades in order to secure a working majority in their House. I think that is not altogether a right spirit to exhibit, at least, to some of their own people, and if a Parliament for Ulster is to be an accomplished fact, I think it ought to be accepted in the true sense of the word to make the best out of it, and not to throw over a number of their own people to gratify their own desire. We are to have two Parliaments according to the Bill, and one is to be imposed upon Ulster. Ulster has not asked for it. The people of Ulster have never distinctly stated that they desire to leave the Imperial Parliament, but, under the present conditions, they are pre-pared to accede to these proposals. To
me the question is, do the two Parliaments in Ireland guarantee a better order of things than we have at the present moment? That, to my mind, is the first consideration. The second is, will they be able to restore law and order; and, thirdly, does it tend to bring the North and South closer together? The present condition of things in Ireland is certainly very unsatisfactory. I do not think there is a Member of this House who would not say at the moment that things are in such a state that some remedial measure ought to be brought forward; but whether this is the right thing to bring forward or not, I am not altogether satisfied. I feel that at the moment we are drifting from bad to worse, and that the condition of things in Ireland is very far from what any Member of this House would like to see. The people of Ireland are smarting under, and bitterly incensed against, the present administration. That may be from many causes, but I think they feel bitterly that the promises already made have not been carried out, and they are suspicious of British administration. I think it can be said that British administration at present appears to be deliberately provocative. One does not say that it is. We do not see that effort made by the Imperial Parliament to overcome the difficulties in Ireland, and at present there are no safeguards either for political or personal liberty.
The hon. Member said he had no confidence in the Labour party or the right hon. Member for Paisley. It does not make very much difference whether he has much confidence in the Labour party or not. The Labour party have a policy, and that policy they are going to pursue, and do their best for the greatest possible number of people. We on the Labour Benches feel that the people of Ireland ought to have been taken into consideration in this matter—at least the great majority of people who have not been considered at all. I might make it clear that the Labour party is not, and by its own nature never can be, a separatist party. It is a federalist party, and far from wishing to detach the Irish people from the English, it aims at establishing the closest possible relations between both, and all the workers of the modern capitalised world. It recognises, as fully as the Irish people do, that such relations must be free rela-
tions, that is, relations in which the national rights of the parties are fully established. Therefore to say that the Labour party are deliberately advocating a separatist policy is very far beyond the mark. At the moment certainly the Irish question involves a new constitution for Ireland. Whether constitution included in this Bill is or is not the right one remains to be seen. We do not think it is. We think there ought not to be two Parliaments imposed upon one country. In view of the changed conditions the new constitution should, at least, be up-to-date. But it ought to be wide in its application, and acceptable to the majority of people. I do not think we can say that this Bill is acceptable to the majority of the Irish people, because not only have not the majority of the Irish people been consulted in any sense of the term, but it has been imposed upon them to take the place of the Home Rule Bill of 1914 which was never put into operation. Of course, it is fully understood that government nowadays is a much more complicated business than it was even in 1914. During the last few years the War has brought many problems forward which otherwise would never have been seen. The Bill ought to have a new constitution embodied in it of all the best possible elements with a view to making the business as simple and as easy as possible to the whole of the people concerned.
Personally I feel that military rule must give way. Coercion must cease if happier relations between the two nations are to succeed. We have had many stories of prosecutions. Many have been mentioned here to-day, of people being arrested without a charge, and brought to English prisons, where they are still lying. What I would like to suggest is that this thing might be remedied to some extent by a change in Dublin Castle rule. We should have some modifications in that rule, or some alterations in the personnel of the Irish Executive, because, as has been pointed out by the Noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil), crime is increasing heavily and rapidly, and until we have some effort made to bring more confidence to the Irish people, and the Irish people to have more confidence in the Government, we are not likely to have any lessening of crime.
Coercion has always led to crime. Coercion and repression still breed crime. In place of coercion and repression we must have mutual trust and confidence, and this cannot prevail under the present régime. Whether it is possible for the present Government to alter the constitution of the personnel of Dublin Castle, and of the Irish Executive, with a view to improvement it is not for me to say. But we do believe that steps in that direction ought to be taken. At the moment, I believe, it prevents the Irish people from solving their own difficulties. It is keeping the nation divided. It is driving them further apart than ever they have been before. It is preventing the realisation of their national aspirations. If we are to have a contented Ireland we must, at least, have something in order to give opportunities for the aspirations of the Irish people to be realised.
Replying to my right hon. Friend (Mr. Clynes) the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that if he had the proposals of my right hon. Friend in writing he thought he would be able to accept the suggestions made. If I understand my right hon. Friend he suggested that a full measure of Dominion Home Rule should be given, with a provision for minorities and Imperial defence. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer is prepared to accept that, can he accept it on behalf of the Government, or will the Prime Minister accept it in the sense in which my right hon. Friend has put it? If he will, of course it will go a very long way to fulfilling the desires of the people on this side of the House. Ulster has been spoken about. But Ulster is not really solid. The people of Ulster do not want this Bill. The heads or the leaders of the people of that particular province have agreed to accept it. But in Ulster even Sinn Fein and Labour are making headway. That has been evident in the recent municipal elections. It was also pointed out during the last Parliamentary election. The Ulster Workers are finding out that they must stand along with their Southern brethren or fall. The Catholic workers of the South can no longer be played off against the Protestant workers of the North. That is becoming understood among the people, and the strength of Labour organisations in Belfast to-day is greater than ever in the history of Ireland. It has been
realised, I believe, that Labour is the real bond that will make partition impossible.
This Bill, said the Noble Lord (Lord E. Cecil), whatever it does, will not settle the Irish question. We on these Benches quite agree with that statement. We do not think that there is in this Bill that which will bring about a satisfactory settlement. We still believe it will keep divided a great nation which ought to be united in spirit and acting as one. Irish opinion is solidly against the Bill. The Noble Lord also said that the first business of the Government was to restore law and order. He stated also that public opinion was the best guarantee of good government. I think we all accept the statement that public opinion is the best guarantee for law and order and for good government. But in view of the Bill, as presented now, and as adumbrated by the Prime Minister before the last Recess, and having been in Ireland in the meantime, I must say that during the whole of the tour of the Labour Delegation, we found that not a single organisation we met accepted the provisions of the new Bill outlined by the Prime Minister. We met no individual nor organisation who welcomed the measure. It did not satisfy any section of the community. As a consequence we feel that to proceed with a Bill of this kind is in entire opposition to the desires of the Irish people. What we should like to see would be for the Government to withdraw the Bill for the time being, and having withdrawn the Bill to consider fully, along with representatives of the Irish nation, Dominion Home Rule. We believe if they introduced a new measure on the lines of Dominion Home Rule, as outlined by my right hon. Friend the Member for Platting, that would be a right course to take, and would be coming much nearer a settlement of this great question than we have ever had before. We believe, that is the Labour party, though there is just now so much trouble and unrest in the Irish nation, that with a little bit of friendship, and by the Government holding out the right hand of fellowship to seek to secure the confidence of the Irish people, we should be getting much nearer a foundation for settlement than ever before. The present military régime, without doubt, is a cause of many of these crimes. We all deprecate crime. No one agrees with it. We
think crime is entirely wrong. At the same time we believe that if the Government would introduce a really bold measure, a measure which, as I have said before, would hold out the right hand of fellowship to the Irish nation as a whole, we should get much nearer to securing the confidence of the Irish people and towards the realisation of their great desire and aspirations. At the same time they would do all humanly possible to help to put into operation any scheme of Home Rule which might be introduced into this House.

Mr. SEDDON: When the records of this day's proceedings come to be read it will be found that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has added to his reputation, not only as a Parliamentarian, but as a Stateman, by the speech he has delivered to the House this afternoon. I listened to it with the greatest possible pleasure, and if ever there was a sincere speech aimed at the solution of a difficult problem, I am convinced that that speech was delivered this afternoon. The last speaker said that if we would only try kindness in this particular case all would be well, and that the present troubles of Ireland would pass away. I am afraid he has not been studying Irish history, and his recent visit has not added to his knowledge of the condition of that country. I want to ask him a very straight question. He said that he was associated with a party that was anti-separatist. I think I am quoting him correctly when I say that he said that his party was against separation. A few weeks ago in the Debate in this House I made an interjection when the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Spencer) was speaking, and I asked whether he agreed with a republican form of Government in Ireland, and I think he replied, "Yes, if the Irish people decide and vote for it." Evidently there is a clear division of opinion on this point amongst the Labour party.
One hon. Member said that if the Irish nation or the Sinn Feiners by a majority voted for a republican form of government, then the party opposite are prepared to grant it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Miles Platting (Mr. Clynes) was also a little bit severe on this point. His speech was temperate in most of his remarks, but
when he began to speak about the Lord Mayor of Dublin I think he claimed too much. He seemed to assume that Alderman O'Brien was just an ordinary trade union leader doing his work effectively, that he was languishing in gaol as a trade union leader, and that he would be just as indignant if any other trade unionist, like the Lord Mayor of Dublin, were in gaol at the present time. I would like to remind the right hon. Gentleman that Mr. O'Brien's name has only cropped up in the labour movement within the last few weeks. I would take the right hon. Gentleman back to the dispute which took place in Dublin during the Larkin period. On that occasion Mr. O'Brien was the lieutenant of Larkin, and at that time they were in process of creating an array and were forming their ideals for a republican form of government, and therefore Mr. O'Brien is not the innocent trade union leader which the right hon. Gentleman has made him out to be, and I am sure he would repudiate even the right hon. Gentleman himself if he tried to dissociate Mr. O'Brien from the Sinn Fein movement in Ireland.

Mr. CLYNES: May I point out to the hon. Member that Mr. O'Brien is not the Lord Mayor of Dublin, and he seems to be confusing two different persons. My point was that whatever Mr. O'Brien had done did not justify him being put into an English prison without a charge being preferred against him and without trial.

Mr. SEDDON: The Mr. O'Brien I refer to is in Wormwood Scrubs, and the impression that the right hon. Gentleman left on my mind was that this man was languishing there without trial and that he was purely a trade union leader. I think it will be discovered that Mr. O'Brien is considerably more than that, and he would repudiate being dissociated from the Sinn Fein movement of Ireland. The last speaker said that during his visit to Ireland he never found anybody who was in favour of this proposal, but he did not say that he found the workers in favour of this Bill in the South. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Adamson) was not over pleased with his visit to certain parts of Ireland, and I think he will agree that his party were not very cordially received by the Sinn Fein
element. May I just call attention to what was said about the visit of the Labour representatives to Ireland by "The Watchword," a publication that represents the Irish Labour party and the Trade Union movement in Ireland. In the issue following the return home of the Labour representatives, after they had issued their interim report and their further report, the same publication denounced the report as "a miserable failure," spoke of "The sickening action of the party," called it "A tragic failure" and "hugging a delusion." There was also this comment on the visit of the right hon. Gentleman and his friends:
With reference to Dominion Home Rule, the Labour party in England would not find two supporters for it in Ireland. A Republic alone will satisfy the Labour movement of that country.
So that I think the right hon. Gentleman will at least have to modify his view that Dominion Home Rule is going to satisfy the Sinn Feiners. They are out purely and simply for a Republican form of government, and it is that we are dealing with. Most of the Debate that has taken place this afternoon merely deals with things that are passed. It is an unreal Debate, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Miles Platting made a strategic détour from the real things we ought to be discussing. The remark was made that you could trust Ireland at the present time. I happen to have the result of proportional representation in the recent municipal elections, and the Sinn Fein and the Labour movements, which are synonymous to a very large extent, returned 184 candidates while the Nationalists only returned 46. Whatever may be the position of the National party towards this Bill or the question of Home Rule, it is clear and unmistakable that so far as the votes in Ireland in municipal elections, so far as the claims of the Sinn Fein party, are concerned, nothing will satisfy them but a Republican form of government, and I am convinced that there is no party in this country prepared to go to the country on the plan of giving a Republican Government to Ireland at the present time.
For many years every effort that has been made has been dogged by cruel pervisity. In 1795 Lord FitzGerald's mission was made abortive through an
accident. In 1885 and 1893, when the hopes of Ireland were strong, another unfortunate mistake took place which threw back for another 35 years the cause of Home Rule. In 1920 we find the Sinn Fein movement, which is a recrudescence of the former history of Ireland. I deplore just as vehemently as the Noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil) the present state of Ireland and the cruel, cowardly murders that are being carried on, but listening to the speeches one would imagine that this was the first time in the history of Ireland that there had been cruel murders, and that of all the Governments that have ever tried to settle this thorny question the Coalition Government is the greatest sinner, and because of its sins crime is rampant in Ireland at the present time.

Mr. IRVING: So it is.

Mr. SEDDON: My hon. Friend is out of the House and is not entitled to interrupt.

Mr. IRVING: And the hon. Member has no right to address me if I am out of the House.

Mr. SEDDON: In 1832 there were 242 homicides, and in 1879 there were 64 in Ireland, but I find that in 1881 in Galway there was one policeman for every 47 adult males and one soldier for every 97. So that in years gone by, so far as crime is concerned, it has been as rampant and it would have been as cowardly, because I can think of nothing so cowardly as men lying in ambush in order to shoot innocent people. In 1881 we had a similar state of affairs. What was said by Mr. Gladstone at that date? He, surely, will be given credit as a friend of Ireland. He spent a large portion of his life in trying to solve this very difficult and thorny question. This is what he said:
The worst of it is that, unlike O'Connell, the leaders fail to denounce crime.
To-day you will not find a single Sinn Feiner who is denouncing these crimes. Crimes are being perpetrated, and even reverend gentlemen dare not denounce them. I was astounded to be told during a visit to Ireland that in the county of Wicklow a Roman Catholic priest who had denounced one of these wanton cold-blooded murders on one Sunday morning found on the next Sunday morning that no man, woman, or child attended his church, thus proving that even the church
is losing its power over those who are being terrorised by the Sinn Feiners as well as over the Sinn Feiners themselves. Look at the Universities. I find Professor MacNeill devotes his time between lecturing on the Gaelic language and producing manuals of tactics of warfare for the Sinn Fein Army. In 1882 Mr. Gladstone made reference to a situation such as we are facing at the present time. He said that while they had ample strength to cope with a political revolution yet if it should turn out that in Ireland there was to be a fight between law on the one side and sheer lawlessness on the other then, he declared without hesitation, the resources of civilisation against its enemies were not yet exhausted.
We have had a good many speeches to-day. We have had the rhetoric of my hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool, but after all, we are dealing with a new situation, and it is necessary we should make our position clear to the rest of the world. It has been stated time and again, on both sides of the House, that this Bill is the fulfilment of a promise. It is said that no one wants it in Ireland, but that does not relieve us from the duty of carrying out our pledges. Great Britain has during the past suffered in reputation abroad, because of the conditions that exist in Ireland.
When one speaks to men of our own race across the Atlantic—when one has been privileged to discuss these questions with leaders of other nationalities, these people have all paid the highest possible tribute to our colonizing efforts and to the building up of the British Empire, but, when Ireland has been referred to, they have always asked how it is we cannot settle this great question. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us he was not going to recant anything which he believed in, but he made the confession, if it was not a recantation, that because of the divisions of the people in this country and in Ireland, we had been unable to settle this issue, which has brought misunderstanding, and has not improved the reputation of Great Britain in the world. If that be so, we are faced with this position. The United States has got a great Irish population. We have great Irish populations in our own Colonies. We want to prove to the world that what has been promised shall be
given to Ireland, and that is the power of self-government. If the North refuse and if the South refuse it, then we shall have this satisfaction, that our national honour will be clear at least, for we shall have attempted to carry out our promise to give Ireland self-government, a question on which there have been pitched battles between political parties in this country for at least a century. This is not the time for balancing party chances. So far as the position in Ireland is concerned no one deplores it more than I do, and I am sure every Member of this House deplores it equally with myself. Much as been made of the fact that in Ireland no section accepts this Bill. I find that in June, 1918, the "Daily News" took up much the same attitude when it said that the election of a Home Rule Parliament now was practically impossible from the point of view of British statesmanship, because it would be agreed that a Parliament with an overwhelming separatist majority, such as that Parliament, would have to be dissolved almost as soon as it began to sit. Therefore so far as our attitude is concerned it appears to me it is clear we have to fulfil our promise.
I want to put a question which has been exercising my mind during the whole of this Debate. It has arisen out of my own personal experience and out of my reading as regards Ireland as it exists to-day. We have been led to believe that these horrible crimes are the direct fruit of misrule and bad government by this country. The question I want to ask is this. How is it that in the North-east corner of Ireland you have trade unionists who are as good trade unionists as any men in this country, who are paying to their trade union lodges and are paying for their politics separately, because they cannot associate with the party to which their trade union is affiliated? There you have in that corner of Ireland those men, good solid trade unionists, opposing this idea of one Parliament for Ireland, subject to the same law—for there is no distinction between the law that governs the North and that which governs the South of Ireland—and yet, under the same laws, you have Irishmen in the North, where there is no crime, while in the other parts crime is rampant at the present time. Therefore
I venture to say that it is not so much the laws that are the cause of the crime; it is the determination of an irreconcilable body who have taken the name of Sinn Fein, and who are out to destroy the unity between this country and Ireland. I should despair if, having set our hand to the plough, we were not able to settle this problem, or to try and settle it, once and for all. I believe that two Parliaments will create a greater rivalry in the desire to come nearer together than could be done by the imposition of one Parliament upon Ireland at the present time. I believe that at the present moment we in this country have a very real need to settle this great problem. Yesterday I was reading the "Life of Gladstone," and I visualised the scenes of former days, when he and the other great gladiators of Parliament crossed their swords in this House upon this very question. As I was reading the record of those mighty conflicts I came across passages where, either on the one side or on the other, there were hopes that this one blot upon the escutcheon of the honour of this country would be finally removed; yet those hopes have not been realised up to the present time.
We are facing a new world, with gigantic problems. All the nations of the earth are in travail, and we want all our strength, and all our time, to settle those economic probems, and that great landslide of tradition, that now demand that is facing the world from every section in every country. It would ill become us at this time, when both north and south, by the shedding of the blood of their best sons, have done something to save us from the tyranny of a foreign yoke, have done something to cement the unity of the British Empire, if it is beyond possibility to bring those two sides together. Never has there been a more favourable opportunity; never has there been a greater necessity for the unity of that country with this country, and with the British Empire as well. We have seen men who fought implacably against each other in days gone by become comrades in arms. I cannot understand the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) in the action he has taken. The very genesis of this Bill came from his association with the Nationalist Party and the Unionist Party in Ireland. Whatever may be his reasons, they will pro-
bably be given when he speaks to-morrow. So far as I individually am concerned, I am prepared to give whatever support is in my power to bring to Ireland a settlement which will ultimately bring them nearer together, and make, in reality, Ireland "A Nation Once Again."

Captain REDMOND: I do not desire to follow the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken throughout the lengthy ramifications of his conversion to division in Ireland as a means of bringing about unity to the Empire. Sub-section (2) of Clause 70 of the Government of Ireland Bill reads as follows:—
The Government of Ireland Act, 1914, is hereby repealed.
That is the kernel of the whole proposal, and that is why, as an Irish Nationalist representative, I desire to utter my most emphatic protest against the action that the Government are taking. I may say, at the outset of my remarks, that, so intensely do I feel upon the question, that, were it physically possible for me, as an Irish Nationalist, by force of arms to defeat the Government in the object of their proposal—as I personally, along with tens of thousands of my fellow-countrymen, endeavoured to defeat Germany by force of arms when Germany treated another Treaty as a scrap of paper—I for one should not shrink from doing so. Recognising, as I do, however, the impossible position of a small nation like my own pitted in open warfare against a great Empire like yours, I take the only opportunity available, and that is here, in your Imperial Parliament, to utter my emphatic protest against your betrayal of my country. There are two obvious objects in the introduction of this Bill, The first is the repeal of the Home Rule Act, and the second is the permanent dismemberment of Ireland. The repeal of the Homo Rule Act may strike hon. Members who were not in previous Parliaments, and even those who were in previous Parliaments, but do not come from Ireland, as something merely to be smiled at. It has, however, a very serious meaning for me and for those with whom I am associated in Ireland. It is a breach of faith; it is a broken treaty; it is a betrayal of the word of the British Prime Minister of 1914. It is the breaking of public pledges, and I do not hesitate to say that it is the keeping of secret undertakings. Public pledges were given to three-fourths
of Ireland when War broke out in 1914, in order to enlist the young life-blood of Nationalist Ireland in the struggle for the liberty of the world. Yes, Irishmen were very useful in those days. But I am also firmly convinced that other undertakings were given to other people in Ireland, that, if they rallied their powers when we did emerge from this War, the Home Rule Act would be torn up, as it is being torn up to-day, and treated as a scrap of paper.
9.0 P.M.
It has been said by various hon. Members, in the course of this Debate, that these proposals do not find favour in any part of Ireland. With that I disagree. I do not say that the Ulster Unionist Members are going to openly support and march into the Division Lobby and vote for these proposals. Upon the very face of the proposals themselves is written the whole campaign of Unionist Ulster, Why should Ulster not approve of these proposals? The Ulster Unionists are getting from the Government of to-day more than they ever asked from the Government of yesterday. When we are told, as we were by the last speaker, that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Asquith) and others assented to partition, did he mean to insinuate that it was the partition that is proposed in this measure? Nothing of the kind. The partition that is being proposed in this Bill was never proposed in any other Bill with which Ireland was concerned. It was never even proposed in the 1916 negotiations. That form of partition was a contracting-out Clause to enable a certain portion of Ireland to contract out of the Home Rule Act, but it was not a Clause erecting in Ireland itself a second nation and building up a permanent barrier against the unity of the Irish race. This partition proposal is very nice indeed. Six counties are to be carved out of North-East Ireland. I wonder on what principle the Committee, in which the Lord Chancellor exercised such great influence in such a purely impartial way, owing to his previous Irish career, decided to carve out six Counties Why did he not carve out more of Ulster, and why was county option dropped? The answer was given only the other day when the Ulster Unionist Council itself turned down the very Covenant by the signing of which they came into existence and refused to fall in with their fellow cove-
nanters in the remaining counties of Ireland, and insisted upon carving out for themselves this little territory where they are to reign supreme for ever more. In fact, the Government's motto is a splendid one. We used to hear a great deal of great British parties in the past having "such mottoes as Fiat justitia ruat coelum. But to-day it is a far finer one than that. Fiat Ulsteria ruat coelum. It is fashioned splendidly according to the arranged plan.
It is sometimes thrown in our face, as it was by the Chancellor of the Exchequer this afternoon, that the people in Ireland themselves find fault with the Home Rule Act. What is the fault which has been found with the Act in Ireland? It is the fact that it was not put into operation long ago and it is the fact that the Irish people were led gradually, by the action and conduct of the Government, to suspect that it never would have been put into operation, and now we see that their distrust was well founded. We have examples of the Government's insincerity. We know that throughout the War there were many occasions when the Irish question could have been settled. We know that the negotiations of 1916 broke down at the dictation of the Ascendancy Party in this country and now the Government say, "You in Ireland will not have the Home Rule Act so here is something not half as good." It reminds me very much of what would take place if a person legitimately demanded say, half a loaf of white bread, and if he were not satisfied with it the other person said, "Here take a quarter of a loaf of black." That is the substitute that we are getting for the Home Rule Act. Neither nationally, nor financially nor economically do these proposals approach the Home Rule Act from our point of view in nationalist Ireland. There are very few hon. Members who know the provisions of the Home Rule Act. It was not by any means the high water mark of our demands here for 40 or 50 years. Nevertheless we accepted it as a settlement of the Irish question and now we are being offered something that does not approach it in any of these respects. There is one thing at any rate to be said for the Home Rule Act. It recognised the principle of Ireland as a nation. It recognised Ireland as one. It is perfectly true that there may have been promises made by
the late Prime Minister in 1914 that an Amending Bill would be brought in to exclude a portion of Ireland. But it is a very different thing to exclude a portion of Ireland from the operation of an Act which recognised the unity of the nation from setting up two Parliaments and thereby recognising two nations. That is a thing that we Nationalists will never tolerate.
As regards the financial position of these proposals, the Home Rule Act was passed at a time when the expenditure happened to be greater than the revenue. But the Act itself actually provided for the contingency which has since arisen. It provided that when the revenue exceeded the expenditure, as it does to-day by a very large sum, the Members were to be summoned from Ireland to this Parliament in full force with a view to amending the financial provisions of the Home Rule Act. Therefore, it is no use saying, as an excuse for repealing the Home Rule Act, that the financial conditions of the two countries have changed since then. Look at the position from the economic point of view. Look at the unnecessary expenditure. Look at the enormous duplication of offices and positions, legal and otherwise, which will be entailed by the setting up of these two Parliaments. Personally, I object to these proposals more than anything else, because the Government do not ask us to create two Councils with a Supreme Parliament, but to create two Parliaments with the mere shadow of a Council. Ulster is to have a permanent veto upon the future growth and development of our country. The Northern Legislature, representing only six out of the thirty-two counties in Ireland, is to have equal representation with the Legislature representing the remaining twenty-six counties. Every man in that shadow Council coming from Ulster is to have four times the power of a man coming from the rest of the country.
Ulster must be appeased. That is the be-all and end-all of this Bill. Ulster up to this has blocked the way of every Irish settlement, but Ulster has blocked the way by political action, by constitutional action, and by unconstitutional action. This Bill gives to Ulster a statutory veto upon the further development and progress of our country. The hope has been expressed by many members, I am sure
sincerely, that at some future date Ulster will join with the rest of Ireland. The hon. and gallant Member for South Antrim (Captain Craig) said that he believed and he hoped that Ulster would never consent to come into any Parliament with the rest of Ireland, and, unfortunately, I am inclined to think that is an accurate forecast of the future, After all, what inducement is there to Ulster to come in and shake hands with their fellow-countrymen? What inducement is this Government holding out to them to do so? Absolutely none. On the contrary, it is setting up a permanent barrier. It is creating enormous vested interests. It is spoon-feeding them, as was described so interestingly by my hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), and there is no reason why in their own interests Ulster should ever desire to join up with the rest of the country. An hon. Member cheers that statement. It is the reason, above all others, that I and those associated with me will not have our country mutilated by this Parliament and why we are opposing this Bill. It may interest the House to hear the views of the Prime Minister himself upon this question of two nations in Ireland and the setting up of two Parliaments. As late as February 25th, 1918, the present Prime Minister, addressing a letter to Sir Horace Plunkett, who was then presiding over the Irish Convention, used the following words:
At the same time it is clear to the Government, in view of previous attempts at a settlement, and of the deliberations of the Convention itself, that the only hope of agreement lies in a solution which on the one side provides for the unity of Ireland under a single Legislature, with adequate safeguards for the interests of Ulster and Southern Unionists, and, on the other hand, preserves the well-being of the Empire and the fundamental unity of the United Kingdom.
Those were the views of the Prime Minister in 1918. What has happened in the meantime to change them? In the course of that letter, he went on further to say:
They understand, further, that it has been also suggested that a safeguard of Ulster's interests might be secured by the provision of an Ulster Committee within the Irish Parliament, with power to modify and, if necessary, to exclude the application to Ulster of certain measures, either of legislation or administration, which are not consonant with the interests of Ulster. This appears to be a workable expedient whereby
special consideration of Ulster's conditions can be secured and the objections to a single Legislature for Ireland overcome.
That is a very different proposal from that which the same Prime Minister brings forward to-day. The proposal today is the exact contrary from the statement that he then made, and I would like to hear from him an explanation of his two policies. We do not admit for a moment that there is any ground for the fears or the apprehensions that people in Ulster have had and expressed in the past concerning their future under an Irish Parliament, but still we have agreed, both during negotiations in this House and finally in the Irish Convention itself, to provide adequate safeguards for the Ulster minority, provided that there is recognition of our nation as a whole. This proposal not only does not recognise the unity of Ireland but it actually gives to the people in this specially selected area, the inhabitants of the new pale, with Ulster as its centre, instead of Dublin, the power of prohibition against the future development and growth of the whole country, and certainly that is a thing which we can never tolerate.
Before I sit down I would like to put the case from the point of view of an Irish soldier. I was not a soldier before the War, and I had no intention of ever becoming a soldier, but when War broke out the Home Rule Act had been passed and had been put upon the Statute Book, and I believed, as many tens of thousands of my countrymen did, that the Government of the day was in earnest and that the word of England was its bond. I went to France along with tens of thousands of my follow countrymen, believing that I was fighting for my country as well as for yours. I went there believing that when I came home I should come home to enjoy the fruits of victory in my own country under the self-government of Ireland, and here is the result. Think of the feelings of those thousands of fine young Irishmen who went to France, Flanders, Gallipoli and throughout the world, fighting for what they believed would be a free Ireland on their return. It is very unfair that, in view of the political conflicts on other matters, including the fact that we would not have conscription in Ireland—there was no conscription in Australia, and the same view is not expressed in regard to Australia—we scarcely get any
credit in Ireland for what we did during the War. We have statistics, and they will be published shortly, showing that the deaths of Irish-born men during the War were as numerous as either Canada or Australia could show. It is only fair that hon. Members and the country generally should recognise the sacrifice that these men made, and should realise that these men ought not to be treated in the way in which the Government is proposing to treat them. The Prime Minister is not present. I wish he was, because I would certainly put this point to him. I do not think he is a sporting man, but I should think he would recognise the little sporting term I am about to use, and I hope he will take it in a sporting sense. There is a certain term used in sport in regard to the gentleman who takes money and will not deliver the goods. He is called a welsher. In the eyes of the demobilised Irish soldiers and those who are left in the Army the Prime Minister is a welsher. They believe that they have paid the price for their country in their brothers' blood, and they have not got the goods. They have fought for their country, they have fought for your country. They went out and fought together. I was pleased to fight shoulder to shoulder, on the Somme and elsewhere, with my fellow-countrymen from the North of Ireland. We fraternised, and we thought that when we came home we would not bicker again, but that we would be happy in Ireland, with a Parliament for our own native country. We did not want two Irelands at the Front; it was one Ireland, whether we, came from the North or from the South, Perhaps I may be pardoned for speaking with some intensity, though some hon. Members are inclined to laugh, because I feel, in common with thousands of my countrymen in Ireland, that I and they have been cheated out of the fruits of our victory. We placed our trust in you and you have betrayed us.
It may be said that there is crime in Ireland. Yes, there is crime in Ireland, and it is increasing and will continue to increase so long as the present régime continues. Nobody deplores the crime more than I do, but if you complain that the King's Writ does not run in Ireland my reply it that while the King's Writ may not run there the King's word does not hold there. The King's word was
the Home Rule Act, and the Home Rule Act is now broken, and that is the feeling of the people of Ireland. Therefore, I desire most emphatically to protest against this breach of faith. It is breaking another treaty with Ireland. I believe that it has not the support of the masses of the people of England, just as I believe the present House of Commons has not the support of the masses of the people of this country. I am confident that if you embark on this sea of trouble in Ireland you will have a far stronger and far fiercer gale to overcome than you have had in any previous attempts at bringing about an Irish settlement. I cannot believe in my heart and conscience that this is an attempt to bring about an Irish settlement. I can only put my own construction upon it, and that is, that it is the price that has been paid to the right hon. Member for Duncairn (Sir E. Carson) by the Government which is beholden to him.

Colonel Sir ROBERT WILLIAMS: The last speaker may be quite assured that there is nobody in England who does not fully sympathise with all that Ireland did for freedom in the War, and to represent England in any way as slighting what Ireland did is an entire misrepresentation. The masses of the English people thoroughly appreciate what the Irish people did. The hon. Member used strong language about the King's Writ and the King's word. He said that this Bill was breaking the King's word. What was the King's word about the Home Rule Act? It was that it should come into force when safeguards were made for Ulster.

Captain REDMOND: I cannot allow that statement to pass. That is not the King's word. The King's signature is on the Act of Parliament, the Government of Ireland Act, 1914, and in that Act there is not a single word about any amending Act. The Amending Bill was a Bill promised by the then Prime Minister. It is not embodied in the Act of 1914. When I said that the King's word does not count in Ireland I meant the King acting through his Ministers.

Sir R. WILLIAMS: I quite agree. I was going on to say God help England if that is the language uttered about the King's word. If you say the King's word means the King as represented by his
ministers, the King's word was the pledge given by that Act. I was perfectly correct in what I said. We have heard something about what the Prime Minister said in February, 1918. This Bill exactly carries out what the Prime Minister said he would do, and if the hon. and gallant Member will read that speech and compare it with this Bill he will see that it carries out exactly what the Prime Minister said he would do. This is to satisfy the English people that Ulster shall be safeguarded. We talked about a Committee for Ulster. It came to what everybody knew would happen, a newfangled constitution with a House of Commons for part of Ireland and a Committee for another part of Ireland to be independent of the Irish House of Commons, because the Irish House of Commons would have a Nationalist majority and therefore it was feared that Ulster would not get fair play. The hon. Member says there was no fear whatever in regard to Ulster, because the Nationalist party would hold out their hands in reconciliation; but England rightly regarded the safety of the Loyalist Members of Ulster, and the constitutional way of doing it is that both parts of Ireland should have their own Parliament. We are told that this is dividing Ireland into two halves. If the hon. Member would check his historical memory a little better he would not call this the Ulster pale, because it would not be the pale of Ulster at all. There would be no line of demarkation in the form of a Customs barrier between the two. To call her a pale with all the opprobrium that attaches to the word is not fair. There is nothing like a pale proposed by this Act. The hon. and gallant Member and the hon. Member for the Scotland Division criticised the Bill sharply because it provides that there are to be two legislatures until these two legislatures decide that there should be one Parliament.
England has tried for I do not know how many years to have Home Rule Bills. I have been in the House for 25 years and every time that there was a Home Rule Bill I have heard the same speech as that of the hon and gallant Member, threatening all sorts of evils and dangers if something for Ireland was not done. We have had four or five Home Rule Bills and the Buckingham Palace Conference. We were told by both the
leaders of the Ulster and Nationalist parties that there was no use in going to that conference because they never could accept anything except what was imposed upon them by the English people from outside, and we know that this was the reason why the conference failed. The right hon. Gentleman who moved the rejection of the Bill said that we should have an Irish convention. We had an Irish convention and the late Mr. John Redmond was on the point of carrying everything with him. Well, I will leave it to those who were at the convention to say why it failed and whether it was due to outside influences or due to the real wishes of the people of Ireland as a whole. Unfortunately Mr. Redmond died and the convention did not succeed. What is the position of England now and why am I, who was for 25 years against Home Rule, supporting this Bill now?

Mr. DEVLIN: Because it is not a Home Rule Bill.

Sir R. WILLIAMS: I think that it is a Home Rule Bill, and therefore I support it. Why? There has been a great War, and the whole world has changed from what it was before, and it is the duty of England to do something to satisfy the legitimate aspirations of Ireland for self-government. This is the one proposal which we have had which gives self-government to Ireland, only reserving those exceptional matters which are necessary, like the Customs, the Navy and Army. No Members from Ireland object to that. The Sinn Feiners would object, but they will cut the painter altogether, and if such a thing were ever proposed I am sure that we should have the support of the civilised world in resisting it. That was the issue on which was fought nearly sixty years ago the great internecine war which resulted in the great nation that we see in America to-day. This Bill goes further and follows the logical consequences of the situation more than any other Bill has ever done. We have heard protests to-day against what was called the fantastic spectacle of two Lords Chief Justices and a double judiciary; but if you were to have the one set of judges for the whole of Ireland, they must be appointed from England. Otherwise if you have judges in Dublin you must have judges for Ulster, as well as for every other part of Ireland.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman and the hon. Member for the Scotland Division referred to what they called the shadowy Executive Council. This body is not an executive body. It is a consultative body with merely a few powers for legislation on matters which affect all parts of Ireland, and both parts of Ireland are to be equally represented upon it, and it represents what I believe the English people generally desire. The right hon. Gentleman does not represent the views of all England. He only represents the views of a certain section of England. Even if he represented the views of the whole of the trades unionists of the country, which it is notorious he does not, the trades unionists are, after all, a minority of the country. Therefore their opinion cannot fairly be said to represent the opinion of the people of England. I am supporting this Bill because I think that we must do something to settle this Irish question, and, as we have been told by the leaders of the two parties, it must be settled from outside, because they cannot make up their own mind, because the Irish people have proved themselves over and over again to be incapable of making up their own mind. If two or three Members would get together to settle this matter, nobody would welcome it more than I, but they cannot do it. They have proved that they cannot do it. They have proved it to-night. They will not do it. If Ireland could come to this country with agreement between the views of both sides and say, "We are going to settle this business ourselves, we have got a plan to do it," England would carry it thankfully to-morrow.

Mr. DEVLIN: Would England leave the country altogether and let her settle the matter?

Sir R. WILLIAMS: Unfortunately, of course, that is exactly what we cannot possibly do. I did not know that the hon. Member was in favour of cutting the painter altogether and having a Sinn Fein Republic.

Mr. DEVLIN: The hon. Member has stated that if a number of Irishmen come together and arrive at an agreement, whatever agreement is arrived at will be carried out, but the reason we do not come to an agreement is that you English politicians are always interfering with our affairs.

Sir R. WILLIAMS: That is exactly the thing of which I have been complaining. We are raking up old things as if they were not all passed. If Irishmen will settle things for themselves we do not want to interfere, but they compel us to interfere. We have therefore introduced this really statesmanlike attempt to settle the problem. Of course, it wants improving, but it will be improved by good will, not by criticism. We have heard a good deal about oppression and the, shocking state of crime in Ireland. When did it begin? It began after the Prime Minister had sketched what the Bill was going to be. Is it straining things too far to suggest from past history that it was the hope of some misguided people in Ireland that by a recrudescence of crime they might frighten England into giving Ireland what it wanted? They have tried that before in Ireland. Is it too late to appeal to the Nationalist Members for Ireland to stop it?

Mr. DEVLIN: Stop what?

Sir R. WILLIAMS: Is it too late to appeal to the sober people of Ireland to stop the shooting?

Mr. DEVLIN: You have muzzled all the sober people in Ireland.

Sir R. WILLIAMS: I have not muzzled the sober people. I will explain what I mean. Mr. Bell was murdered the other day in broad daylight in the view of a tramcar full of people, and not one of those people, be they Nationalist, or Sinn Fein, or anything else, dared to come forward and give any evidence, although the miscreants must have been known to someone. The whole feeling of that part of Ireland was either in favour of murder or the people were terrified. They leave it entirely to the Irish Government, and then they say it is all the fault of Great Britain. I do not think that that is the way to induce the people of Great Britain to help Ireland. This Bill will have to be imposed by this Parliament, because it is the only Parliament in the world which can give anything to Ireland. It is a measure which gives the two portions of Ireland absolute self-government. It provides, as no other Bill has provided, for the coming together of those two Parliaments, and it sets up all the machinery for the one Parliament and one Government as no other Bill has done. That is why I, an anti-Home Ruler of 25 years' standing, support this Bill.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: I listened with very great interest and respect, as I suppose every Member did, to the speech of the hon. Gentleman, who has for so long been a distinguished Member of this House. But really a speech of that kind and speeches of the kind we have heard this afternoon fill one with despair. What did the hon. Gentleman say? He appealed to the hon. Gentlemen opposite, whose disappearance in large numbers from this House is the direct result of the conduct of himself and of the party to which he belongs, to stop crime in Ireland.

Sir R. WILLIAMS: The hon. and gallant Gentleman should be fair in his quotation. I appealed to the sober part of Ireland generally.

Captain BENN: Yes, to the sober part of Ireland generally. If hon. Gentlemen will put away from their minds for a moment the idea that I and my Friends either countenance or approve of crime, it will simplify the issue. Take the case of the Lord Mayor of Cork He denounced Sinn Fein crimes. That is the evidence of the Chief Secretary's own witnesses. He received two visits on the one night, the first from those who murdered him, and the second from the Castle to arrest him. That is what the hon. Gentleman calls appealing to sober opinion. Sober opinion has been put in gaol by the Chief Secretary.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman mean the House to infer that the Government had anything to do with the murder of the Lord Mayor of Cork? Does he: will he answer me?

Captain BENN: I will certainly answer the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. MACPHERSON: This is a matter which can be answered categorically, "yes," or "no." Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman mean the House to infer that the Government was responsible for that murder?

Captain BENN: I was going to answer the Chief Secretary. The matter of the murder is being examined now by a coroner's jury. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw, withdraw," and "Order, order!"] This crime is being examined. I shall wait for the verdict, and I shall accept
the verdict. I have never the least intention of prejudging the verdict. But why should the Chief Secretary get up on quite another issue? Here is Mr. MacCurtain, who denounced crime, and the same night the Chief Secretary orders that he be arrested. Then the hon. Gentleman opposite says, "Why do not the sober-minded people of Ireland help to put down crime?" The answer is, because they are in gaol, and because the Chief Secretary has put them there.

Brigadier-General CROFT: How about the shooting of the humble policeman? Have you ever protested?

Captain BENN: Yes. It is an infamy to bring in assassination. Then why does the Chief Secretary arrest the man who protests against the shooting? It is impossible to deal with the question of the administration of Ireland without being carried away by passionate outbursts. Please God, people who love liberty will never allude to administration in Ireland without being carried away by passion. The whole problem is to crush crime in Ireland by getting behind the machinery of government the good feeling of the majority of the people of the country. There is nothing in it but that. Crime is detestable. It should be denounced by every honest man, and is, but that does not prevent the national claim. I heard the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) say that on account of crime in Ireland he laid aside the national claim. I remember the Noble Lord as a great patriot in the War. The Crown Prince and Princess of a great Empire were murdered at Sarajevo. Did that affect the claim of Serbia to freedom? There is no answer to that. Of course it did not affect that claim. The problem before the Chief Secretary and people of all parties is how in Ireland you can harness the feeling of the sober people, to whom the hon. Gentleman referred, to the machinery of government. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the unpleasant story of Ireland. Ireland is the only country in Europe which in the last hundred years has diminished in population under English rule. All the newly-enfanchised small countries—Esthonia, Finland, Bohemia, Poland—have increased in population. That is due to the fact that the Irish never have received what they all desire, and have never ceased to desire, namely, the right to,
govern their own affairs, and that is the fault of English statesmen.
The question we have to consider is, does this Bill give to Irishmen the right to govern their own affairs? It is a most amazing feature in this Debate that speakers in all parties have admitted that self-government in Ireland is a necessity. That is a great gain. Does this Bill give it? As the hon. and gallant Member for Waterford (Captain Redmond) said, you must test this Bill by its actual powers, and not by any potential powers which Ireland may gain at the mythical date of an Irish union. I think those who study the demands of the Irish people, know that there are two things that they regard as essential attributes of autonomy. One is power to shape Irish industry and trade in what the people of Ireland conceive to be in their interests, and the other is fiscal autonomy. The Convention nearly came to an agreement on that, and I believe a majority, now including the Southern unionists, were prepared to accept the proposition of fiscal autonomy for Ireland. We say that trade follows the flag. If that is true, surely it is not unreasonable for the Irish to believe that by the management of their own affairs they could improve Irish trade. There is a great deal of this in the demand of Sinn Fein. When I say Sinn Fein, I am speaking of the intellectual Irish patriots at the head of that movement who have been much traduced by the Chief Secretary, and who are men of courage and love their country. Their mind is largely turned by the question, "Does this new form of government give us power to control and manage Irish trade." They take what may be regarded as small points perhaps. They give us an example that Irish fisheries are declining, but British fisheries are increasing. They realise that the needs of Ireland are quite diverse from the needs of England. I think everybody will agree that the Old Age Pensions scale, for example, was quite unsuitable for Ireland, and that it was somewhat more liberal in view of the cost of living in Ireland at that time.

Major O'NEILL: Not now.

Captain BENN: It is inadequate also in this country now. In such questions as insurance and many other industrial
matters, the needs of Ireland are absolutely different from those of this country. Ireland is a country in which indirect taxation is the main source of revenue, as it is agricultural and not so much manufacturing. The White Paper gives the figures as 23 and 12 which are very different from those in this country. In the Convention one of the demands made was for power to pass legislation against dumping. I have no particular passion for legislation against dumping, but surely hon. Gentlemen who are in favour of the little nursling which is to appear after Easter will not consider it unreasonable that the Irish should desire a power which they think would be good for their own country. I remember the Leader of the House saying on one occasion, that no country would benefit so much from tariff reform as Ireland. I disagree with him, but if he says that surely it is not unreasonable for Irishmen who are thinking of Ireland to ask that they should be given the power to shape the fiscal policy of their own country. In those two things, power over trade and over the purse, this Bill fails utterly to give self-government to Ireland. Agreement with other countries as to trade is a reserved power. By Clause 20 customs, excise, income tax and excess profits, all points of the fiscal instrument, are to be reserved and taken away from the power of the Irish Parliament. The reason we are told that you cannot give power to do that is that Ireland consists, some say not of a nation at all, but of two nations. If there were one legislature to control the whole of Ireland the difficulties to which I have been referring would disappear and there would be no trouble about giving a customs barrier to the island as a whole, just in the same way as in the Dominions. But of course there is considerable trouble about giving two customs barriers to the two Parliaments. The Government say it is necessary to have two legislatures and that is the reason for the denial of what is the kernal of any true system of self-government for the country.
10.0 P.M.
I do not know that it is necessary for me to say very much about the question whether Ireland is a nation. The new policy is that Ireland is two nations, but I remember that The Lord President of the Council Used to say it was ridiculous to say that Ireland was a nation. I myself have never understood on what possible
principle or on what facts that statement could be made. It would weary the House, although it is an interesting exploration, to go through all the references that occur in literature and by English visitors to Ireland, from the time of Edmund Spenser, the poet, right down through the ages, to Ireland as a nation. If we take the legislation that we pass in this House, only a part of it is applicable to what is called the United Kingdom. Out of 1,089 Acts of Parliament in the 20 years from 1891 to 1910, only 547 were generally applicable to the United Kingdom, the others having to be modified or altered for Ireland, and if that is not due to some elements of nationality in that country I do not know to what it is due. The land legislation is on a totally different basis; there is no divorce, and there are many other illustrations of the fact that there is something in Ireland which demands special treatment and which partakes of the character of nationality. Take the Irish language. Even before the great recrudescence of Irish nationality that we have seen as a result of repression in the last few years, before the War, in nearly half the schools in Ireland, the Irish language was being taught—in 3,000 out of the 8,000 primary schools in 1909—and, of course, there has been an enormous progress since then. The number of men you see wearing the little sign for those who speak the native language is very considerable. As to the national consciousness of Ireland, the history of Ireland is one long story of its struggle to express its national unity, the description of their struggles all through the 18th Century, the whole story of Grattan's Parliament, and, above all, the story of the last five or six years. In the Easter rebellion of 1916, 600 people, I believe, took part. The Chief Secretary told us the other day there were now 200,000 people enrolled as an army—

Mr. MACPHERSON: The hon. and gallant Member will remember, because he gets his information from the same source, that the American delegates who came from America, the Sinn Fein authorities there, in the first paragraph of the American delegates' report told the very fact which I told the House, namely, that there were 200,000 men in arms in Ireland for Sinn Fein.

Captain BENN: I do not think it affects the point I am trying to make, which is
that there has been a steady growth in all the outward signs of Irish nationality, and the House will believe me that I do not want to make a controversial point. I would rather read some words written by Mr. Russell. Some people might sneer at Mr. Russell, but I do not think most Members of this House will. He is speaking of the Irish Nationalists to-day.
They are inspired by ancient history and literature stretching beyond the Christian era, a national culture, and distinct national ideals, which they desire to manifest in a civilisation which shall not be an echo or imitation of any other.
That sums up in a most concise and interesting way the spirit of nationality which pervades Ireland to-day. The answer I know that the Government make to this is, "Oh! there is not one nation in Ireland; there are two nations, and these two nations can never be reconciled, and the fact, therefore, has got to be met." I should like to ask the hon. and gallant Member for Mid-Antrim (Major O'Neill) to which of the two nations do the O'Neills belong?

Major O'NEILL: The O'Neills were essentially Kings of Ulster.

Captain BENN: The O'Neills were Kings of Ulster, and Ulster was the most Nationalist of all parts of Ireland.

Major O'NEILL: As Ulster Nationalists.

Captain BENN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman will not deny that he is an Irishman, and proud of it. What about his hon. Friend, the Member for Canterbury (Mr. R. McNeill)? To which of the two nations in Ireland do the McNeills belong? We are told that the religious bitterness in Ireland is so great that it is impossible to allay it. I should like someone with historical knowledge to tell me this: During the time when the fires of Smithfield were crackling, how many martyrs were burnt in Ireland? Not one. Yet surely there were Papists, and what a unique opportunity to roast people! But they neglected it. These wild Irish—you cannot even civilise them up to the point of an auto-da-fé! They are an impossible people. When you talk about two nations in Ireland, why, Ireland has shown a capacity which no other country has shown for absorbing those people who have been sent over as planters and settlers. You talk about the great Irish Nationalist movements such as 1782 and
1798. All those are historical facts, but the leaders of the Irish nation were Protestants—that is the amazing thing. Robert Emmet, a Protestant, Wolfe Tone, a descendant of a Cromwellian settler. What talk is this about two nations? Swift, Flood, Grattan—all the sons of English officials, sent over to govern Ireland. Smith O'Brien and Parnell—the descendent of Cromwellian settlers—and Father Mathew, the descendant of a Cromwellian settler. We must seek elsewhere for an explanation of the division of opinion in Ireland. It is not because there are two nations in Ireland. It is because this country has always had some party in Ireland prepared to do the work of England.
What is it the leader of the Ulster party said? That we, the men of Ulster, were put there to maintain the connection: they have done it honourably, and they would do it even at the cannon's mouth. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Quite so! That is the ascendency party. That is the whole history of Ireland. If you examine the history of Ireland you will find that one ascendency has been established after another ascendency. You first had the ascendency of the Episcopalian Church, then the Presbyterians were taken in, then the landlords, then the Ulstermen, and then the present Ulster party. In return for their ascendency in Ireland they have come to this House and voted for every reactionary measure proposed in this House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] Yes, they have! Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major O'Neill) deny it? If he does, I have documentary evidence here, but I did not want to take up the time of the House.
This is a Bill for partition. Partition which has been denounced by every Unionist leader—by Mr. (now Judge) Campbell, the First Lord of the Admiralty, the leader of the Ulster party; in the convention it was specifically repudiated by Mr. Barrie in a special Report. In the latest speech of the Leader of the Ulster party he said:
Keep Ulster in the United Parliament. I cannot understand why we should ask them to take a Parliament which they have never demanded, and which they do not want.
The object of partition is to save minority, and this involves in its natural course the oppression of many other
minorities in all parts of Ireland. The Southern Unionists are deserted. Tyrone and Fermaugh protest. The Catholic Bishop of Derry protests. So do others. The Bill really presents more difficulties, than it removes. The Divisions are unnatural Divisions. The real safeguard for minorities in Ireland is to give back to Ireland a normal public psychology [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I will explain what I mean by that—to try and get the people of Ireland to think in the terms in which we think.—[Laughter]—I am sorry that I fail to make myself clear. Let me try again. I mean this: In Ireland there is only one question. It does not matter whether you are a labourer, or an agriculturist, or a town dweller, or whether you are in favour of temperance, you are only tested by the one shibboleth: "Are you a Unionist or not?" That is a very unnatural division. If once you could get Ireland to attend to national affairs, apart from this great issue of Union or non-Union, you would get a more natural division. I do not know whether you might not get a change in the representation; you might have a Labour party created in Belfast. The farmers in the South and the North would join again as before—the Labour people of all parties would join with the temperance people of all parties. The Anglicans of all parties would join; and you would get a more normal distribution of opinion in Ireland, instead of the present bitter test as to whether or not a person is in favour of the Union.
The real reason, however, why the Ulster party consented to the partition of Ireland, and the real reason why the Government have adopted this as their policy, is because it will destroy the possibility of self-Government in Ireland. The leader of the Ulster party said:
They need fear no action of Ulster which would be in the nature of desertion of any of the Southern provinces. If Ulster succeeded Home Rule was dead. Home Rule was impossible for Ireland without Belfast and the surrounding parts as a portion of the scheme.
He said on another occasion:
To-day Belfast was the key. Failing the inclusion of Belfast in a Home Rule scheme, Home Rule would be impossible.
We have heard to-night from one of the Members of that party that they do not intend to unite with the other parties. I think, therefore, we are justified in deducing from that that the real reason
that they have given an assent, and the answer to the question of why the Government have selected this peculiar form, is that it deals the death-blow at the insistent demand of Ireland for national self-government. Many people will ask, What form of solution would you propose yourself? I am not particularly well qualified to express an opinion, but I would take the same form as has been recommended by nearly everybody on the Front Bench. I do not want to weary the House by quotations, but everybody has said, "Give us the Union if you cannot give us the Colonial form of self-government." Lord Carnarvon was one of the very first to recommend this course. John Bright Said the same thing, for when he was asked, "If you were a Home Ruler, what would you do?" he said, "I would give Ireland the fullest form of self-government." The late Mr. Joseph Chamberlain said, "If Ireland was 1,000 miles away she would have had what Canada has had for so many years." The Leader of the Ulster party said the same thing, and so did the Lord President of the Council. The Leader of the Ulster party said that if you are going to do away with the Union, the only thing you can substitute is a really autonomous form of Colonial administration.

Mr. RONALD McNEILL: As the hon. and gallant Member has referred to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Duncairn (Sir E. Carson), I do not think he ever used that argument. I know he has said that there is no half-way house between the Union and complete separation, and that if you depart from the Union you must go to the full demand of complete separation.

Captain BENN: The words used by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Duncairn, were:
There can be no half-way house between the full system of self-government that prevails in the self-governing Colonies and an united Parliament here.
If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that is the right thing once the Union has gone, why does he not support it now? It is admitted by everybody that the Union has gone. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I submit that the form in which this Bill has been introduced is the very worst form in which a settlement could have possibly been outlined, because you deny all the things that are worth having
to a sovereign Parliament. You deny them the power of the purse and the power to shape and control their trade. What will be the result? I think the Sinn Fein Members will be in a large majority in the Southern Parliament. Suppose they wish to turn this instrument which you have provided against you, what is the check? Is there any fear of losing anything, because they have nothing to lose. If the powers of the sovereign Parliament were considerable, then I think anybody, Sinn Fein or others, who attempted to use it as an instrument for another purpose, would incur the displeasure of the great body of sober opinion in Ireland. If that be the fact that the powers are trumpery and trivial, then I think it is possible there will be no one in Ireland who will care what happens to the Southern Parliament. It cannot possibly satisfy these desires. We have been told by a speaker for Ulster that the two Parliaments will not unite in order to get a system of real self-government for the whole of Ireland. What this Bill really means is giving statutory power to the ascendancy of Ulster, and instead of the old ascendancy, which was merely an ascendancy conferred by this House, it will be a statutory ascendancy conferred by Parliament. If this Bill passes you are going to endow by statute the Ulster veto—that is the real objection to this Bill on the part of those who desire self-government for Ireland. I do not want to weary the House: the subject is too painful for me to desire to do that. Many of us feel, although we are not so qualified by experience as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Waterford, much concerned about losing the fruits of the War. During the War we had some of the noblest, speeches made by statesmen of this country—speeches which really stirred us. The Lord President spoke of
the cause of small States which desire to develop their own civilisation in their own way, following their own ideals without interference from any insolent and unauthorised aggression.
That is an expression of the ideals towards which they were moving. The Prime Minister himself spoke of these ideals of the War in a still more touching way. He said:
If this is the day of great empires, it is also the day of little nations. … Around them the greatest struggle for liberty centres.
As far as I have been able to gather, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Waterford agrees with these ideals. The Irishmen who went to the War were fighting for those ideals as applied to their own country.

Brigadier-General CROFT: For the United Kingdom.

Captain BENN: I need not remind the House of the many great deeds done by Irishmen in the War. The first shot in the War was claimed to have been fired by an Irish regiment. There was, too, the battle of the Aisne and the landing from the Clyde in which so great a part was taken by Irish troops, by the Dublins and the Munsters and the London Irish and the Connaught Rangers.

Mr. R. McNEILL: And the first Member of this House who was killed in the War was an Ulsterman.

Captain BENN: I am glad to pay a tribute to that gallant Member and to all other hon. Members who were killed in the War, and do not let it be imagined that I draw any distinction between their patriotism. In the battle of the Aisne an officer named Sarsfield was killed. That is an historic name in Limerick. What I venture to impress upon the House is that all of those Nationalist Irishmen were fighting, not so much for this conception as for the conception of liberty for their own country. Just before the War the late Mr. John Redmond passed down Birdcage Walk, and the Guards' band played "God Save Ireland." I think they were reproved for it. I can imagine someone, who wished to make a point in this House, saying that "God Save Ireland" refers to the murder of policemen. At the battle of Mons they sang the same tune. "The Bold Fenian Men" was another song sung at the battle of Mons. When the King reviewed the 10th Division, an Irish Division, at Basingstoke, the band played "A Nation once again." In regard to Suvla Bay, where I had the honour of serving with the same Division, who were massacred and slaughtered by the fire of the Turks, a non-commissioned officer writes:—
We got into a splendid order on the double, and each man in a very short space of time picked out his objective. Two minutes afterwards the air was filled with the moans of the wounded, but amidst the din of battle you could hear our lads shouting, 'A nation once again.'
A late hon. Member of this House, Mr. Kettle, expressed, if I may venture to say so, very beautifully his conception of what his ideals of the War were, in a little poem which he wrote four days before he was killed:
To my Daughter Betty—the gift of God. Know that we fools, now with the foolish dead,
Died not for flag or King or Emperor,
But for a dream born in a herdsman's shed
And for the secret scripture of the poor.'
That was the fine ideal that inspired Irish patriots who went to fight for their country in the great world battle. This Bill denies them the main attributes of nationhood; it divides the country that they love; it erects and entrenches ascendency; it destroys their one charter of emancipation. For that reason I shall vote against the Second Reading.

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down commenced his speech with a question. He asked whether this Bill gave self-government to Ireland. After an excursion in various directions, he answered the question by saying that it did not give self-government to Ireland, and that the Government has selected a particular form of Bill because they knew it would destroy self-government. In order to arrive at that conclusion, he put certain tests. He said that the Bill should be tested by the powers which it gave, and not by potential powers. I am perfectly prepared to test it in that way. He was not very fortunate in his selection. He said there was no power to deal with Old Age Pensions or Insurance. As I understood him, he said that neither of those was included; and also that it should be tested by the power to deal with trade questions and finance.

Captain BENN: I apologise for interrupting the right hon. Gentleman, but I instanced Old Age Pensions and Insurance as two cases where the natural needs of the two countries were very diverse.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That is what I thought him to say. The hon. and gallant Gentleman complained that Ireland would not have power to deal with old age pensions or insurance.

Captain BENN indicated dissent.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Then there was no point in his observa-
tions. I understood him to say that the requirements of Ireland were so different from those of the United Kingdom that they ought to have power to deal with these questions, and unless they had there was no true self-government. Curiously enough, under the Act of 1914 there is no power in Ireland to deal with either of these two questions, but in this Bill so much further have we gone that power is given to deal with both these questions, which I agree with him may quite well be dealt with differently in Ireland and here. He also said there was no power in the Irish Parliament to deal with dumping, nor is there in any State Parliament in any of the Dominions or Commonwealths of the Empire.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Redmond) laid stress upon the fundamental difference between this Bill and every previous attempt. He quite truly pointed out that the 1914 Act and every other Bill had proceeded upon the basis that Ireland was one nation united in the demand for a particular form of self-government, and the Bill or Act attempted to set up a national Parliament with wide powers over all Ireland. There is a fundamental difference. That was what was done by previous Acts and Bills, and in every case it failed because it did not recognise the real fact that in Ulster, if not a separate nation, you have at least a separate people with different views, which must be recognised and reconciled before any form of self-government can be set up which is likely to be a permanent success. The hon. and gallant Gentleman thought that in this setting up of two Parliaments there would be a permanent dismemberment of Ireland. Permanent dismemberment in a Bill which provides every opportunity for the two Parliaments to come together if they choose! Permanent dismemberment by whom? Not by this House, because this House has provided the means by which they can come together and form one Parliament at any time. Permanent dismemberment, then, by whom? By the Irish themselves? And yet he told with much force of the tale of the Nationalists and the Ulster-men, soldiers fighting shoulder to shoulder in the trenches, and then to say that the people who can join and fight shoulder to shoulder in the trenches are to be permanently dismembered when they are invited and almost under the Bill com-
pelled to come together time after time for the purposes of their common affairs! The Bill, I believe, recognises the lesson to be drawn from the failures of the previous attempts at Home Rule. It recognises that a single Parliament for all Ireland can only be set up by consent or coercion, and coercion is out of the question for the Liberal party, and it has never been in question for the Unionist party. I think it is also out of the question for the Labour party.

Mr. CLYNES: Why not put an end to it now?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: By coercion I mean, as the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, the bringing of Ulster people under one Parliament when they have declared over and over again that they are not willing to be so governed. I am not talking of coercion of crime. That is a totally different matter. I should like to know what the answer to that question is. Is the Labour party prepared at any time to enforce the bringing together of all people in Ireland under one Parliament by coercion if necessary?

Mr. CLYNES: The Bill proposes that.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I think not. I think on the other hand that coercion is recognised to be out of the question and consent is the only way by which ultimate unity can be reached in Irish self-government. Meanwhile, the Bill offers to each part of Ireland self-government in all local affairs. It sets up two Parliaments subordinate to the Imperial Parliament. Each of these Parliaments is freely elected, and neither can interfere with or thwart the other. The Bill does much more. It leaves to the two Parliaments the decision when, and for how long, they shall continue as separate Parliaments or whether and when they shall unite in one Parliament. It does still more. It leaves to the two Parliaments full powers by identical Acts to settle the terms of union. They can prescribe the number of Members of the Irish Parliaments, they can settle the constituencies, and they can regulate the legislative and financial relations between the two Parliaments. All this can be done without further reference to the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Is not that self-government?
Whenever they like, without any reference back to us, they can form the one Parliament. Even before union, they can, if they choose, combine in the Irish Council to consider questions of common interest, and here I want to deal with the most interesting and amusing speech of the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor). He drew the picture of the super-man in Ulster who is to veto the action of the Southern Parliament. What right have they to veto anybody? They do not get it under this Bill. Each Parliament is perfectly independent of the other. They come to the Council if they like, but neither can prevent either Parliament operating, and, even if they do not come to the Council, they can carry on in their separate Parliaments. Why should we suppose that they will be unwilling? As the hon. and gallant Member for Waterford (Captain Redmond) said, they fought shoulder to shoulder in the trenches. Why should we imagine that they will not meet in council on matters of interest to them?
It has been said that the Council should have wider powers. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Platting Division (Mr. Clynes) said that it was a Council of very little importance. I am not quite sure that he did not call it a sham. If the Imperial Parliament gave the Council wide powers, it would be said at once that the Imperial Parliament was destroying the utility of the two Parliaments, the Northern and the Southern Parliaments. The more power you give to the Council, the less power each independent Parliament has regarding its own local affairs, and the objections I am sure would be strong and loud if anything were done which destroyed the powers of the Northern and Southern Parliaments. We have left the Northern and Southern Parliaments by agreement, to give just whatever powers they choose to the Council. They can not only give the powers, but they can set up executive and administrative machinery under the Council, and they can assign such taxes as they choose for the purposes of any work that is sent to the Council. In fact, the criticism on the powers of the Council is premature. The Council will be exactly what the two Parliaments choose to make it. It is not for us to say what that Council
should be. It will be exactly what the two Parliaments make it, those Parliaments having been given self-governing powers for that purpose.
I want to deal with the question of the Imperial Contribution. No one has disputed, unless my hon. Friend (Mr. O'Connor) intended to dispute, the liability of the Irish Parliaments to make contributions to Imperial expenditure.

Mr. O'CONNOR: I never mentioned that point.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I think the hon. Member did mention it, because he referred to the 1914 Act and said that in that Act a provision was included which after three years would call for a rearrangement of the finances under that Act and I think he went on to say that that would deal with everything that was necessary to be done in the changed financial conditions as between England and Ireland. It would be interesting to know whether he means that there is to be an Imperial Contribution or there is not to be an Imperial Contribution. It has not been denied up to the present. At the Irish Convention the majority of the Nationalists certainly were willing that there shall be; they recognised the obligation of Ireland to contribute according to her means. How is the contribution to be fixed? The outstanding feature of the financial position to-day is uncertainty. We do not know what the normal expenditure will be. We do not know what the future naval and military expenditure will be. It does not depend upon us alone. It depends upon what the safety of the Empire demands. Our expenditure on services for the War debt is at present a matter which cannot be dealt with. We do not know what the net total of our War debt will be; we know what the gross total will be, but there are claims to be set off against that, and assets still to be realised. Moreover, a good deal of our debt is floating debt, and the interest on it varies from day to day. Therefore, it is impossible to say exactly what would be fixed as a reasonable contribution by Ireland. The Bill provides that an amount shall be taken temporarily, and it lays down principles upon which the future contributions shall be settled. To-day Ireland is contributing about
£22,000,000 towards Imperial expenditure, but we are not proposing to take the whole £22,000,00. We first allow £4,000,000 for the increased cost of new services, such as old age pensions, bonuses and excess stock for pending land sales, housing, insurance, and education. After deducting this £4,000,000 from the present contribution of £22,000,000 we arrive at the £18,000,000 in the Bill. But the whole of the £18,000,000 is not being taken as contribution because there is a further amount of £3,250,000 on the land annuities which will presently amount to £3,750,000. Therefore the actual amount of the Imperial contribution which will be taken under the Bill at the end of the second financial year after the passing of the Bill will be £14,750,000 millions gradually declining to £14,250,000, and the contribution is apportioned as between the Southern and Northern Parliaments as to 56 per cent. by the Southern and 44 per cent. by the Northern. At the end of the second year the Joint Exchequer Board will find the proportion of the Imperial expenditure which is to be borne by the Irish Governments, but the annuities will always remain as a free gift from Great Britain to Ireland.
The right hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) objects also to this Bill because the United Kingdom controls the finances. The hon. and gallant Member for Waterford (Captain Redmond) also objects to the Bill on the ground that it is not so generous financially to Ireland as the 1914 Act. The latter statement I feel sure he cannot substantiate. The Bill is infinitely more liberal to Ireland than the Act of 1914, and it is infinitely better as a financial instrument with which Ireland can regulate her own house. The Bill provides that the true revenue from all taxes raised in Ireland, after deducting the Imperial contribution, shall be available for expenditure in Ireland. There will be deducted the cost of the reserved services which are being administered by the Imperial Parliament, and the balance will be paid over to the Irish Exchequer under the control of the Irish Parliaments. The Income Tax and Super-tax are retained in the hands of the Imperial Government, and the collection will be made by Imperial machinery. That was also complained of, but if that was not so, if the levying and collection
of Income Tax and Super-tax were transferred to the Irish Parliament, the whole of our system of deduction of Income Tax at the source would be broken up, and there would be a loss of many millions a year without any corresponding gain to Ireland. Indeed, there would be a loss to Ireland, and the retention of the central levying and collection of the Income Tax is just as much in favour of Ireland as it is of ourselves. Moreover, were it transferred, there would be almost insuperable administrative difficulties arising from double taxation, owing to the vast number of transactions which take place between Ireland and England. But the Irish Parliaments are given powers, and wide powers, of varying the rate and the incidence of the Income Tax. So far as Ireland is concerned, they can reduce the tax by giving a rebate to any class of individual they think should be relieved of taxation, or they may increase the amount by a surtax on persons resident and domiciled in Ireland. The Irish Parliaments then have as much freedom as is possible without breaking up our present Income Tax system, and they have in that a wider power and a much more elastic power than was given under the 1914 Act.
Customs and Excise are not being transferred. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain W. Benn) seemed to lay a great deal of stress upon that. No doubt the Nationalists have always laid a great deal of stress upon the possession of powers with regard to Customs and Excise. They have always regarded it as one of the recognitions of their status as a nation. They have always regarded it as a badge and symbol of nationality and not merely as a financial instrument. It would be quite impossible to give the two Parliaments, while there are two Parliaments, powers to levy Customs and Excise. No such powers are given to any provincial government in Canada or to any State in America. Not merely would it mean customs barriers between Ireland and England, but a customs barrier across Ireland itself. When, however, union has taken place, a totally different question will arise. Ireland may then be able to show that the power to levy and collect customs and excise is necessary or desirable for her commercial development, and she may then be able to propose some other method of securing a
contribution to Imperial expenditure. When that day comes Ireland will be united, and it is not the least likely that she will fail to receive for any such proposal the consideration it will deserve.
There are other powers of taxation transferred by this Bill which were not transferred in 1914. For example, there are death duties, stamps, excise other than on commodities, and miscellaneous income. The actual taxing powers under the 1914 Act were very slight indeed. They were practically limited to increase of existing taxes, laid on by this Parliament, to an extent calculated to raise not in excess of one-tenth of the tax. We are giving a far greater power than was given under the 1914 Act. In addition, this very important fact must not be overlooked. The Irish Government benefit by the Income Tax being levied by us, it being cheaper for them that it should be so; they benefit from any surplus arising on customs and excise. Under the 1914 Act they did not get that surplus. Under this Bill, if there is any increase in the yield of taxes, or any new taxes levied by this House, they will get the whole of the difference after having paid the Imperial contribution. At first they will receive about £10,500,000 of Income Tax and Super-tax, and about £6,000,000 of customs and excise, after allowing for the Imperial contribution. On the present figures the Irish Parliaments will receive, first, £1,000,000 each to pay preliminary expenses. The hon. Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. O'Connor) wanted to know why the smaller Parliament should receive an equal sum with the larger Parliament. It must be obvious that there is no unfairness in that. The cost of setting up a legislature and the offices in the North will be just as great as the cost of setting them up in the South. In the South, at any rate, in Dublin, there are buildings available. In the North most of that expense will have to be incurred from the start. Each of the Governments is to have £3,250,000, rising to £3,750,000, as a free gift to land annuities, compared with £500,000 dropping to £200,000, which they would have received under the 1914 Act; and then they are to have the full advantage of the greater yield of taxes. I want to say to my Unionist friends that they have got to remember that the 1914
Act is on the Statute Book, and while it is true that we have always opposed Home Rule in the past, because that proposal sought to set up one Parliament for all Ireland on the basis that Ireland was one nation, and every Bill ignored the patent fact that there was in North-East Ireland, if not a separate nation at least a separate people who refused to be compelled against their will to be ruled from Dublin, this Bill ensures for North-East Ireland self-government, which perhaps they may say they do not demand, and it also ensures them freedom from any coercion by an alien Parliament, which has been for so long the object of their resistance. The Bill is not merely negative. It gives immediate self-government to the whole of Ireland, and it enables the Irish Parliaments to unite without any further legislation from the Imperial Parliament. If I may say a word to others who are not Unionists. I would say that you have supported Home Rule in the past, and you have shown that you prefer one Parliament for all Ireland. Since 1886 that has been your policy and your faith, but union is only possible by coercion or by consent. Coercion has gone and union by consent alone is left. Here is your chance after thirty-three years of endeavour. Your policy may now succeed by consent of both Parliaments in Ireland. A few years of separate Parliaments and constant intercourse through the Irish Council may bring both self-governing States to your conclusion. Their fears and suspicions may be removed. They may consent, and I hope they will consent, to unite in an Irish Parliament and take their place as one unit in a Federation of the United Kingdom.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. G. Thorne.]

Debate accordingly adjourned; to be resumed to-morrow (Tuesday).

Orders of the Day — WAR EMERGENCY LAWS (CONTINUANCE) BILL.

Order read for consideration of Lords Amendments.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered," put, and agreed to.—[Sir E. Pollock.]

Orders of the Day — TITLE.

An Act to continue temporarily certain emergency enactments and regulations, and to make provision with respect to the expiration of emergency enactments and instruments made thereunder.

Lords Amendment:

After the word "expiration", insert the words "or revocation".

Agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 4: (Application to Isle of Man.)

Where any enactment or regulation continued by this Act has by Order in Council

FIRST SCHEDULE.


Enactment.
Nature and Extent of Limitation.
Nature and Extent of Extension.


Lords Amendment:


At beginning, insert the following new paragraph,


Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (Temporary Rules) Act, 1914 (4 & 5 Geo. 5, c. 27).
Limited to the continuance of the present state of war in Europe and for a period of six mouths thereafter.
To continue, so far as it relates to the extension of the time within which acts or things may or are required to be done under the Patents and Designs Act, 1907, or the Trade Marks Act, 1905, until the tenth day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty-one, as if in Section Three thereof for the words "during "the continuance of the present "state of war in Europe and for "a period of six months there-"after" there were substituted the words "until the tenth day "of January, nineteen hundred "and twenty-one."

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir E. Pollock): I beg to Move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
11.0 P.M.
I may mention that this was inserted in the Schedule of the Bill in another place in order to comply with a request that has been made on behalf of the neutral signatories to the International Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property. Under the Peace Treaty, Articles 307 and 308, a period of one year after the coming into force of the Treaty was allowed for the signatories to put themselves straight, to use a comprehensive phrase, and this power already exists in the case of all the countries with whom we were lately at war, but the neutrals are asking to be

made under the Isle of Man (War Legislation) Act, 1914, been extended to the Isle of Man, the continuance effected by this Act shall apply to the enactment or regulation as so extended.

Lords Amendment:

At the end of Clause insert the following new Sub-section,
() For removing doubts it is hereby declared that any Order in Council made under the said Act extending any enactment or regulation to the Isle of Man may be revoked by Order in Council.

Agreed to.

placed in the same position and to have the same privileges granted to them. There is no reason for granting privileges to our late enemies which should not be granted to the neutrals, and the simple way of doing it is to allow the latitude granted to the Controller of Patents under the Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks (Temporary Rules) Act, 1914, with regard to enemy countries to be granted to the neutrals. Under the two sections which are referred to in the Patents and Designs Act, 1907, and the Trade Marks Act, 1905, the Controller has power to give an adequate amount of time for the completion of any act, or the payment of any fee, or the application for registration, and under the War legis-
lation, where the necessities of the War required it, he could give latitude. These privileges have been asked for by the neutrals, and for that purpose this alteration has been made in the Schedule of the Bill.

Colonel PENRY WILLIAMS: The extension is rather a surprise, because it appears to me that the action of the Government is outside the scope of the Bill. The Bill is
to continue temporarily certain emergency enactments und regulations, and to make provision with respect to the expiration of emergency enactments and instruments made thereunder.
Under the original Act the Controller has power to deal with enemy countries, but I take it that under that Act he has no power to deal with neutral countries, and therefore I hardly think it is possible for the Government at this late period of the Bill to extend its scope so as to cover people who were outside the scope of the original Act. I therefore submit to you, Sir, for your ruling, that this is an attempt which is out of order.

Sir E. POLLOCK: I think the hon. and gallant Member has overlooked the fact that the Act which is extended, the Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks (Temporary Rules) Act, 1914, applies to all persons in all cases, and did apply to neutrals, as well as to countries with which we were at war. It gave the Controller a discretion to extend the time that was given in the Statutes passed before the War, namely, 1905 and 1907, under which the Controller of Patents had the power to grant privileges to all countries. Then came this Statute in 1914, and continued these powers in respect of all countries. The only difference between neutrals and the countries with whom we were at war is that, in respect of the latter, under the terms of the Treaty, the provision is made that the extension of time is to last not less than one year after the coming into force of the Treaty. It is possible that powers in this Statute of 1914, which did cover, and do still cover neutrals, might lapse before the powers under the Treaty had been exhausted, and therefore, in order
to give neutrals the same power, it is a simple method to continue the War legislation which did cover neutrals, although my hon. and gallant Friend seems to think it did not. It is merely extending War legislation which did cover neutrals, for the purpose of not prejudicing them as against enemy countries. The real point of divergence on which the hon. Member was not quite clear was that the Temporary Rules Act did give power to the Controller to deal with neutrals as well as enemy countries.

Colonel P. WILLIAMS: Of course I accept the learned Solicitor-General's explanation, but I really do not think it is quite fair that this should be sprung upon us at such a late period of the Bill. The Lord Chancellor in another place pointed out that this was made for the first time in the other House because, by a curious accident, it was forgotten in the House of Commons, and the proposal would ordinarily have been made here. It goes to prove that this Bill has really been passed without due consideration by either this House or perhaps by another place. I do not think there is really any objection to extending this to neutral countries. At the same time I think it would be very much better if the Government had told us so in the House of Commons.

Sir E. POLLOCK: Perhaps I may explain again that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is not quite right in the last point he has made. At the time the Bill was introduced in this House we had not agreed to the terms of the Convention; otherwise, of course, the provision would have been made in the original draft of the Bill. As the matter was not ripe at that time for introducing it into the Bill, it had to be introduced at a later stage.

Captain W. BENN: I want to read the words of the Lord Chancellor, because it shows that my hon. and gallant Friend is right and the Solicitor-General wrong—
The only reason that the Motion is made for the first time in your Lordships' House is that by a curious accident, which I will not detail, it was forgotten in the House of Commons.

SECOND SCHEDULE.


Regulations continued.


Number of Regulation.
Subject Matter.
Limitations, Qualifications, and Modifications subject to which extension is made.


2AB
Power to take possession of premises for purposes of the Ministry of Pensions or the Ministry of Labour.
So far as relates to the power of taking possession of land, including the buildings thereon, certified to be required for carrying into effect the Naval and Military War Pensions, etc., Act, 1915: Provided that such power shall not be exercised unless after due inquiry the Minister of Labour or the Minister of Pensions (as the case may be) is satisfied that the premises cannot otherwise be reasonably obtained.


11A
Power to restrict lighting with a view to increased supply of light and power for purpose of production.
As if the words "necessary for "the successful prosecution of "the War" were omitted.

Lords Amendment:

In Regulation 2AB in column 3, at end, insert the words,
and has laid a report stating the circumstances of the ease and particulars of the proposed exercise of the power before both Houses of Parliament, and if either House within the next twenty-one days on which that House has sat after the report has been laid before it passes a resolution against the exercise of the power proposed, no further action shall be taken thereon, but without prejudice to the making of any new proposal.

Sir E. POLLOCK: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is an additional safeguard to that suggested by this House, and is put in to meet the misgivings of some hon. Members in this House and in another place as to the power of the Minister of Pensions and the Minister of Labour in taking possession of premises.

Major MACKENZIE WOOD: I should like the House to be quite clear as to the effect of this Amendment. The point I wish to make is that it seems to me there is no provision made if the 21 days referred to should elapse before the exercise of the powers. If you have the Ministry of Pensions making up its mind to take action under the Act on the 1st September they would have a whole month to carry out their
decision and it would be the middle of October before the House met. It would only be after the House met that we should have the opportunity of objecting and by that time the mischief would have been done. If the Amendment is to be of any use at all it should provide that 21 clear days should have elapsed before the powers which they are going to exercise should be actually put into force. If my reading of the Amendment is correct I should like to ask the Solicitor-General whether he might not put in a further Amendment giving the real protection which I have no doubt it is intended to give.

Sir E. POLLOCK: This Amendment is to allow power to proceed before the Report has, in fact, been laid before this House, but it follows the precedent which is now the common form in use. An analogous clause has been put into the Peace Treaty Act, under which Orders in Council will be made and will be laid before this House. The practice of not being able to take any active steps at all until this House has signified, so to speak, its assent, is not followed in this case. What it does is to give this House power to exercise control by saying whether or not they approve what has been done, and if they do not approve no further action can be taken in accordance with the report. Inasmuch as it is necessary in
many of these cases to take action without delay power is given to act.

Major M. WOOD: But it will be too late to act when the thing is done.

Sir E. POLLOCK: The matter has been discussed in this House over and over again, and Amendments have been made for the purpose of carrying out the scheme which my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind. More recently the precedent in this Amendment has been adopted. I would remind the House also that the necessity for this is only or almost only in respect to meeting the difficulties of the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Pensions in their work for the demobilised men. It is a limited power, but owing to the necessities of the case it is necessary to move with the least possible delay. I ask the House to accept this further limitation imposed in another place and not go back upon its decision to grant these powers to the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Pensions in the form in which the Bill originally left this House.

Colonel P. WILLIAMS: We ought to have a clearer explanation of what is going to happen under this Amendment. I will recall to the House our fears in this matter. During the Committee stage some of us had a genuine feeling that the provision for commandeering premises was that the local authorities were pressing for the return of their municipal buildings now occupied as local pension committee offices. We pressed the Government as far as we could and we received from the Solicitor-General an assurance that it was intended to allow the municipal authorities to retake possession of their Town Hall, and request the Ministry of Pensions to commandeer some outside buildings. The Attorney-General said that this was not an attempt to give back the municipal halls in order to secure accommodation at a cost that was very satisfactory, and I would like to know whether that assurance still applies. When this Bill was discussed in another place the Lord Chancellor said that this Amendment was on behalf of Municipal Authorities and had insisted that they must provide some other premises. He further said that they only took the municipal premises for the time of the War, and now that the War is over
they must go and get offices for themselves, and the time had come when it was imperatively necessary to find premises for these Committees. Under these circumstances it appears that the Government has yielded to the pressure of the municipal authorities and intends to give them back their municipal buildings now occupied as Pensions Committee offices and Labour Exchanges, and commandeer outside premises. It is not quite fair to commandeer church and chapel halls.

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not seem to arise on this Amendment. The original proposal of the Bill was to put some qualifications on the action of the two Ministries. This Amendment puts a further qualification. The two Ministries are the Ministry of Pensions and the Ministry of Labour, and this adds another restriction, but it does not raise the whole question.

Colonel P. WILLIAMS: I should be satisfied with this further restriction if I were assured that this House would have an opportunity, during the 21 days while the House is sitting, of raising a protest against any action taken by the Minister of Pensions or the Minister of Labour, but I rather gathered from what my hon. Friend elicited just now, that that is not so. If the House is to sit on only one of those 21 days and then, after the lapse of the 21 days, the Government is to take necessary action to commandeer premises, there will be no chance of this House objecting to the action being taken. If the Solicitor-General will assure me that during the 21 days while the House is sitting they can object, I shall be content.

Sir E. POLLOCK: If the hon. and gallant Member prefers that the additional safeguard proposed to be given should not be given, but that the Bill should be restored to its original form, I shall be prepared to accept his view. This House did not ask for this alteration. It has been put in in another place. It limits the powers of the Ministry of Pensions and the Ministry of Transport, and I should have thought that the hon. and gallant Member would welcome the additional limitations, but if he desires that it should not be inserted—well and good. We are anxious that the matter should be open to Debate in the House, but if hon. Members prefer that it should not be open to Debate, then it is quite easy to disagree with the action of the other place.

Captain W. BENN: The hon. and learned Gentleman has mistaken the point put forward by my hon. and gallant Friend. We fully accept this additional safeguard, but we want to know whether, in case the House sits on only one day in the 21 days fixed upon, the Order will become effective.

Sir E. POLLOCK: I am sorry I have not made myself quite clear. I thought the words in themselves were clear enough. Either House within the 21 days will have an opportunity of discussing the matter. I can say no more than that.

Lords Amendment:

In Regulation 11A, in column 3 at beginning, insert the words, "So far as relates to lights used solely or mainly for the purposes of advertisement and ".

Sir E. POLLOCK: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This restricts the power of control over lights to stopping the use of lights solely or mostly for advertisement purposes. It limits the power of control given by Parliament, and I think it will probably be acceptable to the House.

Earl WINTERTON: It has been generally understood that several of our Allies have complained bitterly that, at a time when coal is almost impossible to obtain, there is such a large amount of street and other lighting in this country. I think the Government should retain the power, in times of scarcity, at any rate for the next two years, to restrict lighting to what is necessary for purposes of production. I consider that the Lords' Amendment is distinctly reactionary. It limits this Regulation to lights used solely or mainly for the purpose of advertisement. I think the House should retain the power to stop street lighting in times of scarcity. I regret that the Lords put this in, and that the Solicitor-General has not made some protest against their action.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.—Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Sir R. Sander.]

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-seven Minutes after Eleven of the Clock.